|
CAMP 72/2018
[2019] HKCA 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO CAMP 72 OF 2018
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 607/2017)
| ----------------------------------- |
| RE: |
A M Z |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
Before: Hon Chu, Barma and Au JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 14 June 2019
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 24 August 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng (“the judge”) on 3 April 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 13 March 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“I can’t go back to my country at this moment because my life is not safe in my own country. Please allow me to stay in Hong Kong until I have problem. I hope I will get your kind favor”
4. In an affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant stated that he did not receive any letter to inform him that his application had been dismissed.
5. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 25 March 2019. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.
6. 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 Notice of Motion and written submission.
7. The application for leave to appeal is well out of time. The court’s judgment was sent to the address provided by the applicant, and no good explanation has been offered as to why it would not have reached him.
8. In any event, the matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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 in the Notice of Motion and written submission.
9. The applicant did not identify any error in our judgment. The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground of appeal at all. In our view, the intended appeal is 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 13 March 2019 is dismissed.
| (Carlye Chu) |
(Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|