RE ALI SAQIB

CAMP 8/2020

[2020] HKCA 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 8 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 244 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down judgment on 5 August 2020 ([2020] HKCA 638) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 8 June 2018 refusing to give leave for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim. The applicant had taken out a summons on 23 September 2019 for extension of time to appeal, which the Judge dismissed on 17 December 2019. The facts and issues in the intended 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 a Notice of Motion on 17 August 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 20 August 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on or before 31 August 2020, and 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.  The applicant filed his written submissions on 1 September 2020, which was 1 day late.  Although the applicant did not provide any explanation for the delay, we shall consider his written submissions as the delay was minimal. 

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

“The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the director of immigration refusing my application for judicial review.

The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle on procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

I will face hardship if I return back to my country (Pakistan) and that the Torture Claim Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay.  The judge did not apply the law properly.”

5.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he stressed that high standards of fairness and reasonableness are required in the determination of his right to non-refoulement protection because the decision has a significant effect on his non‑refoulement claim.  The applicant submitted that the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his credibility.  He also referred to various case authorities and argued that an unreasonable decision should be set aside. 

6.  As noted in [12] of our judgment of 5 August 2020, the applicant had failed to put forward any grounds of appeal when he applied to this court for an extension of time to appeal the Judge’s order.  He is not entitled to rely on any new grounds now.  In any event, the grounds in his present application are broad and vague, and his submissions are unparticularised.  

7.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.  

8.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified 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 17 August 2020 is dismissed.