RE RAZA ATIF

CAMP 447/2021

[2022] HKCA 1740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 447 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1964 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 21 June 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 873). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 21 May 2021, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Decision”) ([2021] HKCFI 1452).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to request and informe to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration as well as the Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim has been determined fairly.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 26 July 2022.  In those submissions, he again complained that no assistance was given to him with regards to his BOR2 risk claim.  He further asserted that “the basic right of a litigant to understand contents of the process or Judgment” cannot and should not be deprived of and that the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process was appalling and should not be tolerated.

6.  In our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations.  His written submissions are essentially a regurgitation of the same submissions made previously before this Court in his reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re‑running the arguments which had already been canvassed previously before this Court: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014) at [2] and [3]. His arguments had already been fully considered and rejected by this Court at [13] ‑ [20] of the Judgment and the applicant failed to identify with specific particulars any error in the Judgment.  As such, nothing set out in the Notice of Motion can be considered as viable grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, the applicant’s contentions are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, he has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 13 July 2022 is dismissed.