RE HALDAR BASED

CAMP 96/2019

[2021] HKCA 446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 96 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 951/2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 23 April 2020, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 4 December 2018 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 decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, 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 dated 18 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The judges refuse my leave to apply for judicial review, but it is clear in the total judgment judges failed to show any good cause to cancel/refuse my leave, I am very sorry to say this judgment is not fair judgment, I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal”

4.  In the affirmation dated 18 June 2020, the applicant deposed that:

“Affirmation for extension of time to make notice of motion because timely I failed to submit my application”

5.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 2 July 2020.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return to Bangladesh.  He wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal to obtain a fair judgment.

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.  As accepted by the applicant in his affirmation, this application is out of time.  No explanation for the delay has been provided.  In any event there is no merit in 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.  Other than the bare assertion that the judgment refusing extension of time to appeal was unjust, the applicant did not identify any error in that judgment.  The applicant has not provided any viable ground of 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 18 June 2020 is dismissed.