|
CAMP 156/2020
[2021] HKCA 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 156 OF 2020
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 220/2017)
____________________
| RE: |
GULZAR MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 7 May 2021, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Yau J (“the judge”) on 22 January 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 12 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because they were totally relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Because its toward to my life in my home land in Pakistan. Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life.
4. The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge a skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of the same by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 May 2021. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
7. The applicant complained that the court adopted a “bias and formula approach” but he did not give any details of this. In our view, this ground is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. As for the rest of the matters raised in the Notice of Motion, they do not identify any supposed error in our judgment and they are thus not valid grounds for an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 May 2021 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(GODFREY LAM)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|