RE AHMED SHAFIQUE

CAMP 400/2022, [2024] HKCA 1145

On an intended appeal from [2022 HKCFI 318]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 400 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 273 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 26 April 2023, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 26 January 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in this court’s judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated his complaints as regards the decisions made in the processing of his claim (such as the court having apparently ignored some “overwhelming” evidence), as well as the alleged dangers to his life should he be refouled.  He also contended that he was disadvantaged in the proceedings due to a lack of legal representation. 

4.  In the applicant’s written submissions lodged on 10 May 2023, he essentially repeated the matters stated in the Notice of Motion, while also referring to the trite principles applicable to the determination of non‑refoulement claims.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.

6.  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.

7.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 May 2023 is dismissed.