RE HUSSAIN ABDUL RAHAMAN

CAMP 131/2021

[2022] HKCA 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 131 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 658 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant is an Indian national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan,[1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by the judge[2] and later by this Court on 29 October 2021.[3]

2.  The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the application have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 8 November 2021, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ I would like to tell in this grounds regarding my appeal was rejected by appeal court, because I was unable to submit my suporting document in time it was my mistake. But still I have problem and threaten by my enemies to my family too, and they are belong to BJP suporters AADMK party and BJP party both are together facing election also together. If they do any harm cannot do any action against them, because our state is and central government ruling by BJP. And I will try my best to take my document before oral hearing.” [sic]

4.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  In his written submissions of 17 November 2021, the applicant in essence reiterated the basis for his non-refoulement claim and also the grounds stated above in his Notice of Motion.  He asked for time to obtain supporting documents for submission to the court.

6.  Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.