RE SITI BADRIYAH

CAMP 16/2023, [2026] HKCA 401

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 16 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1044/2019)

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 9 January 2024, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 25 November 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to appeal against his decision dated 23 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had purportedly sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim, which was treated by the Judge and by this court as an intended review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 January 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated, inter alia, that this court was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied “the principle of procedural unfairness” and “the principle of irrationality” to the decisions below.

4.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.  He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

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 19 January 2024 is dismissed.