|
CAMP79/2019
[2021] HKCA 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 79 OF 2019
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 797 /2017)
________________________
| RE: |
MADBAR SOHEL |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 25 March 2021
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 23 April 2020, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 24 August 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 dated 5 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“On 23 April 2020 the [judges] cancel my claim for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of TCAB. But I am not agree with this decision. I did not get fair judgment, to get the fair judgment I want to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Because it is impossible for me to return my country.”
4. In the affirmation dated 5 June 2020, the applicant deposed that:
“…on 23 April 2020 I have got a decision. But I am late to appeal for Notice of Motion.
5. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 15 June 2020. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, 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.
7. Although the applicant acknowledged that this application was out of time, no explanation for the delay was provided. Notwithstanding this we shall deal with the application on its merits.
8. 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.
9. The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground for judicial review or a valid ground of appeal. As for the other grounds raised by the applicant, they lacked particulars and we are therefore of the view that these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 5 June 2020 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|