|
CACV587/2020
[2021] HKCA 1906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 587 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2075/2018)
-----------------------------------
| RE: |
ISHAQ MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
Before: Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 16 July 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 on 21 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“The [Director] and the [Board] rejected my non refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I want go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
4. In the affirmation filed on 21 July 2021, the applicant deposed that:
“…I did not get any letter to apply in time, please accept my claim…”
5. The applicant lodged written submission in support of the application on 4 August 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He noted that the Director, the Board and the court have dismissed his claim and submitted “I do not know why all the judges do bad with me but my claim is true and my problem is dangerous.” He wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to “check my problem finally”.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, 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.
7. The applicant claimed that he did not receive the judgment but he did not give any particulars by way of explanation. We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the application.
8. 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.
9. Neither the Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 July 2021 is dismissed.
| (Aarif Barma) |
(Lisa Wong) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|