RE SHAIKH AZHARUDDIN

CACV 215/2022, [2024] HKCA 1066

On Appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 215 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 74 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 is an Indian national whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 19 September 2022.

2.  Over two years later, by Notice of Motion filed on 24 September 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant claimed that this court’s decision was wrong in relation to the “principle of procedural unfairness” and the “principle of irrationality”.  He stated the fact that the decision-maker had not considered all aspects relevant to this case was a matter of great general or public importance.  He asserted that officials and courts preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities in his country.  He said he would be killed or harmed if he returned to his country.

3.  The applicant’s written submissions lodged on 9 October 2024 merely contain excerpts from judgments in previous cases and assert that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.

4.  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.

5.  We take the view that this application should 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, should 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.  Furthermore, there has been inexcusable and inordinate delay on the part of the applicant in issuing the present application, long after the expiry of the statutory time limit of 28 days under section 24 of the Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.