RE HASSAN WALEED

CAMP 224/2020

[2021] HKCA 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 224 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 307/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 May 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 30 June 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 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I am the applicant herein. In the order give to the court a more complete picture about my case I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims. I am requested to court could you please save my life. Bundle of thanks.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 12 July 2021, the applicant deposed that:

“I would like to request to court I have no received letter because my landlord no coming in my home my land lord have letter box key that’s why I am late filing could you please accept my application bundle of thanks.”

5.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 22 July 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He also referred to s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 without explaining its relevance.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.

7.  The applicant claimed that the delay was due to the landlord not visiting him.  He did not provide any particulars for this explanation, such as the time from the last visit or why he did not get a key from the landlord.  We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the application.  We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the application.

8.  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 he has raised.  

9.  Neither the Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.

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 12 July 2021 is dismissed.