Ali Usman v. Director of Immigration and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 70/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 April 2019 before Lam VP, Barma JA, Au JJA.
Administrative law – immigration – non-refoulement claims – judicial review – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether applicant identified question of great general or public importance – applicant complained of inability of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office to re-open his claim – applicant also complained of lack of response to BOR 2 risk claim and absence of written notice under s.37ZG(5) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 – applicant's earlier appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal on 7 December 2018 – application determined on the papers – held that applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 – re-opening and BOR 2 risk issues already addressed in prior Court of Appeal judgment – new point regarding s.37ZG(5) notice not raised below and not a basis for leave – Court of Appeal does not grant leave on new points not canvassed before it – CFA generally does not grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in Court of Appeal – no basis under 'otherwise' limb – Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion dated 12 December 2018 dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 5 cases
|
CACV 70/2018 [2019] HKCA 412 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 70 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 682/2017) -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 7 December 2018, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 16 March 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Director of Immigration. 2.The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 dated 12 December 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:
4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 27 December 2018. In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion. The applicant complained of the inability of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office to re-open his case. He also complained of the lack of response by the Director for his claim based on BOR 2 risk. He submitted that he never received any written notice under s37ZG(5) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. 5.The Director filed submissions to oppose the application on 8 January 2019. 6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission and the submissions by the Director, 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 his Notice of Motion and written submission. 7.The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submission 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 in his Notice of Motion and his written submission. 8.In relation to the issue of re-opening his claims, we have dealt with the same at [23] – [27]. As for the claim based on BOR 2 risk, we have held at [32] that the appropriate way forward is for the applicant to make a claim to the Director based on BOR 2 risk. 9.We note that, hitherto, the applicant has not raised any complaint of the lack of a written notice under s37ZG(5) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. As we have explained before, it is not the practice of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in the hearing before it;[2] nor generally is it the practice of the Court of Final Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court of Appeal.[3] 10.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 11.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 December 2018 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person Ms Patricia Lam, Government Counsel of Department of Justice, for the 1st putative respondent [1] See [2018] HKCA 955 [2] See Ageas Insurance Co (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV 65/2014, unreported, 19 May 2015, at [7] to [9]; and The Law Society of Hong Kong v A Solicitor, CACV 78/2014, unreported, 10 July 2015, at [4] to [7]. [3] See Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates Ltd (2002) 5 HKCFAR 356 at [39]. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 70/2018