RE MIRZA MUHAMMAD RAMZAN BAIG

CAMP 89/2022, [2023] HKCA 1190

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 89 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2867 OF 2018)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court handed down judgment on 19 July 2023 ([2023] HKCA 871) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of DHCJ P. Li given on 28 October 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 24 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The applicant stated the following as his grounds in the Notice of Motion:

“I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual Life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and [court] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

5.  In his written submissions, he contended that high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker, and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.

6.  As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

7.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  The applicant’s grounds in the present application are just bare assertions without anything in support. His written submissions are the same as those he lodged with this court in support of his previous summons. We have duly considered his submissions and given reasons for rejecting the same in our judgment. The applicant has not identified any mistakes in our judgment, or any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 24 July 2023 is dismissed.