RE RAHMAN WASIF

CAMP 191/2018

[2019] HKCA 619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 191 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 80 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court handed down judgment on 13 March 2019 ([2019] HKCA 299) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against an order made by Wong J (“the judge”) on 23 November 2018 refusing his application for leave to appeal out of time the judge’s order given on 12 May 2017 dismissing his intended judicial review application concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied by Summons filed on 19 March 2019 for reconsideration of this court’s decision.  His Summons was dismissed by the Hon Lam Ag. CJHC and Yuen JA on 22 March 2019 as this court’s order of 13 March 2019 had been perfected and thus made final. By a Notice of Motion on 18 April 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He explained in his affirmation that his application was late because he was not aware of the correct procedure.

3.  The applicant stated the following in his Notice of Motion:

“- I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

- The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle as procedural unfairness to the Decision of the Director where by the Director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.”

4.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 24 April 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

5.  The applicant filed his written submissions on 6 May 2019, which was 4 days late.  He explained in his affirmation that he had received the court’s direction by letter on 2 May 2019, so there was a short delay in filing his written submissions. 

6.  Having taken into account his earlier application, we have decided to consider his Notice of Motion and written submissions.  In his submissions, the applicant mainly complained that there was a lack of “high standards of fairness” before the Torture Claims Appeal Board and that its decision was unreasonable.  

7.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 18 April 2019 is dismissed.