MASUD RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 571/2020

[2021] HKCA 1087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 571 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 968 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lok J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court (Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and Lok J)  handed down judgment on 17 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 880)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 15 October 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 28 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant shall lodge with the court written submissions to support the application within 14 days after the application for leave is filed.  The applicant has not lodged any written submissions with the court.

4.  The said Practice Direction also provides that, subject to any direction made by the court, such kind of leave applications will be dealt with and determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper. 

5.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated that he is not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal. He also made a general allegation that this court had failed to conduct sufficient inquiry in respect of the applicant’s case.

6.  The applicant has not provided any specific grounds of appeal.  Neither has he addressed the reasons of this court’s judgment in his Notice of Motion.

7.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 

8.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 28 June 2021 is dismissed.