RE DAR WASIF HUSSAIN

CACV 73/2022

[2023] HKCA 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 73 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2814 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

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 a Pakistani 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 30 January 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 20 March 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that all the previous judgments were “not good” for him and that he wanted to go to the CFA. In an affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant acknowledged that his application was out of time, but did not provide any explanation for the delay.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the court’s directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 3 April 2023, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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. In addition, his application for leave to appeal was filed after the expiry of the 28-day period prescribed by section 24 of the Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.