RE HAQUE AZIZUL

CAMP 218/2019

[2021] HKCA 1814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 218 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 442/2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 23 March 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 23 February 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 decision 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 filed on 19 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my non refoulement claims. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 19 July 2021, the applicant deposed that:

“Affirmation for apply of notice of motion but out of time as I did not get the court judgment.”

5.  The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time.  The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, 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 get this court’s judgment but he did not explain why that was the case.  He also did not explain how he eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the application.

9.  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.  

10.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor affirmation identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

12.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 19 July 2021 is dismissed.