|
CAMP 144/2023, [2026] HKCA 1485
On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 144 OF 2023
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 239 OF 2022)
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
TAHMOOR HUSSAIN |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
25 August 2026 |
_________________
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 by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”).
His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of
First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this
Court in our judgment dated 12 April 2024.
2. By Notice of Motion filed grossly out of time on
28 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that
document the applicant simply asks for the chance to appeal against our judgment.
3. 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.
4. 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 much more than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement
in section 24 of the Ordinance, and there was no valid explanation for the delay.
5. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|