RE ALI SAIF

CAMP 116/2022, [2024] HKCA 789

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 116 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 655 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the applicant’s late filing of an appeal was rejected by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s and the Board’s decisions was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court (Yuen and G Lam JJA) in its judgment dated 19 July 2023.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 13 June 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the Director and the Board made a number of critical errors in their decisions, and that the Board failed to conduct specific assessment of the risks he faced, to analyse the substance of his claims, and to give specific and individual consideration to his claim for non-refoulement protection.

3.  In his written submissions dated 24 June 2024, the applicant reiterated the factual allegations for his non-refoulement claim and said that his claim was not faked.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed very much more than 28 days after this court’s judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

[1] [2023] HKCA 854.