|
CAMP 237/2020
[2022] HKCA 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 237 OF 2020
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 595/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
AKIF MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 11 January 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 19 July 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 17 August 2020 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 decision 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 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“The Director of Immigration and the [Board] rejected my claim of non-refoulement. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review, I have no way to stay in Hong Kong. Finally I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice”
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 26 August 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return and reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion 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.
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 has raised.
7. The applicant claimed in the written submission that he did not “get any letter” but he did not elaborate on this. The applicant has given a similar explanation for the delay in bringing the intended appeal from the judge’s decision to refuse leave for judicial review, which was dealt with by the judge in [4] of his decision to refuse leave to appeal dated 1 December 2020 and by this court in [16] of our judgment.
8. The applicant claimed that he disagreed with the judgments and decisions against him thus far and asked for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. However, neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 August 2021 is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the High Court |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|