RE ALI HAYDAR

CACV 560/2021, [2023] HKCA 493

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 560 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1948 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court handed down judgment on 4 November 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1638) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ P Li given on 2 December 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 8 November 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The Notice of Motion stated:

“The Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board destroyed my claim. I was not satisfied. I came to the High Court. The High Court and the Court of Appeal too did not grant my leave to apply for judicial review. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

5.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given on 8 November 2022, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 22 November 2022. He failed to do so and only lodged the same on 24 November 2022. He did not explain the delay but it was minimal. However, the applicant merely repeated his complaints as set out in the Notice of Motion and further claimed that the court failed to find errors in the decisions made by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The written submissions did not raise any valid ground of appeal or advance the applicant’s case.

6.  As we consider it appropriate, this Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

7.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

8.  Having regard to this court’s judgment, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 8 November 2022 is dismissed.