|
CACV 191/2021
[2022] HKCA 918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 191 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1982 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SIDDIQUE MUHAMMAD IRFAN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 5 July 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 14 September 2021, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 16 April 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 out of time on 5 November 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant referred in the Notice of Motion to alleged errors of the decision-makers who processed his non-refoulement claim, but did not point to any supposed errors in the determination of his appeal by this court.
4. In the affirmation filed on 5 November 2021, the applicant deposed that he filed the Notice of Motion late as he was impecunious.
5. In his written submissions lodged on 18 November 2021, the applicant repeated the dangers he may face upon a return to Pakistan, as well as the alleged errors committed by the decision-makers of his non-refoulement claim.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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 failed to explain how and when he eventually came to know about the judgment of this court. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
8. In any event, the matters advanced 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. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 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 filed on 5 November 2021 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|