Re Tahir Ambar Ali

CACV 354/2018

[2019] HKCA 642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 354 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 814/2017)

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

Before: Hon Chu, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 14 June 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 30 November 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 20 July 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

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 1 February 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“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 favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and courts 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.”

4.In an affirmation filed on the same date the applicant stated that he wished to appeal as he was still in the process of collecting evidence to support his case. 

5.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application dated 14 February 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant referred to a number of cases concerning the high standard of fairness without explaining how they are relevant to his case.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 Notice of Motion and written submission.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in the 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 the Notice of Motion and written submission.

8.The applicant has also not given any reason for the delay in filing the Notice of Motion.  He also failed to identify any viable ground of appeal.

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

10.Furthermore, as the court refused to grant leave for the applicant to appeal against the judge’s decision refusing him to bring a judicial review application out of time, such decision is final and not amenable to further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal: see section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 and Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2007) 20 HKCFAR 240.

11.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 1 February 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person