|
CAMP 37/2022
[2023] HKCA 285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 37 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2920 OF 2018)
-----------------------------------
| RE: |
AHMAD ASHFAQ |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
| Before: |
Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
8 March 2023 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 22 April 2022, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ P Li dated 25 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 out of time on 26 July 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated that he wished to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.
4. In his written submissions lodged on 9 August 2022, the applicant repeated the dangers he may face if he returned to Pakistan, and claimed that he “did not get justice”.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion 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.
6. 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 of over 9 weeks, which is not insignificant. The Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone. We have however proceeded to consider the merits of the application nonetheless.
7. 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.
8. 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 26 July 2022 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|