RE DIALLO THIERNO AMADOU

CAMP 170/2018

[2019] HKCA 900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 170OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 486/2017)

________________________

________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 27 May 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Poon JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 564) refusing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time for appealing against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 4 May 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 946).

2.  In his notice of motion dated 10 June 2019 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant advanced the following grounds of appeal:

“ I Diallo Thierno Amadou hereby to explain the fact, I don’t want to go back to my country guinea because my life is in danger, because of the challenges am having with the family of my father, because my father still refuse to involve himself and his children in such idol, the family keep threatening to kill us, also for the huge amount of money my father involved me in, those of his friends are still searching for us to harm us, which I never wanted to be harm by any of both parties [illegible] the idol and those businessmen, this why am here to appeal again for non-refoulement.” (sic)

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of his notice of motion on 24 June 2019.  In it, the applicant referred to the background of his case and set out materials concerning the violation of rights and corruption in Nigeria. 

4.  At [18] – [20] of the judgement, the Court explained that there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal.  The applicant failed to engage with such reasons in his Notice of Motion and submissions.  We cannot see any reasonably arguable basis that the Court was wrong in this respect.

5.  The grounds advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.  Having reviewed the materials before us, we cannot discern any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor can we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb. Accordingly, the statutory thresholds for granting leave appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.