Re Soumah Ousmane

CAMP 71/2018

[2019] HKCA 1005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO CAMP 71 OF 2018

(ON INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 172/2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 30 July 2018, this court (Barma and Poon JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 20 March 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 decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application for leave to 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 10 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The judgment is unreasonable”

4.In the affirmation dated 10 May 2019, the applicant deposed that:

“I was late to apply Notice of Motion because I get the letter late in my letter box”

5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 June 2019. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also gave a brief summary of the legal proceedings before the present application.

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

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

8.The applicant failed to identify any error in our judgment.  In our view, the intended appeal is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 May 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person