RE SHAMS UL QAMAR

CACV 567/2020

[2021] HKCA 1907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 567 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 451/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

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 27 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 29 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. For the great interest of oppressed people I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. I wish I will get good decision from there.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 29 June 2021, the applicant deposed that:

“Affirmation for apply notice of motion but I am late. As I did not get letter from the High Court.”

5.  In the written submission dated 26 July 2021, the applicant summarized the events giving rise to his claim for protection. The applicant then submitted:

“…All of the arguments are only two officers thought. I am practical. I know the horrible situation so I want to say the decision of the Director of Immigration and Adjudicator is not correct.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal to refused my leave. I did not get justice. For justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

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 letter from court but he did not explain how he eventually learnt of the handing down of our judgment. This is thus not a reasonable excuse for the delay. We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of 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.  In the Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, the applicant claimed that he did not get justice but he did not identify any supposed error in our judgment. He has therefore failed to raise a 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 29 June 2021 is dismissed.