Re Mohammad Firoj and Others

CAMP 205/2019

[2020] HKCA 236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 205 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 232 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  29 January 2020

Date of Judgment:  22 April 2020

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court (Hon Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down judgment on 10 January 2020 ([2020] HKCA 40) dismissing the applicants’ application to extend time to appeal an order of M Poon J (“the Judge”) given on 22 January 2018 refusing to give leave for judicial review in respect of their non‑refoulement claim. The applicants had taken out a summons on 11 July 2019 for extension of time to appeal, which the Judge dismissed on 13 August 2019. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 13 January 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.On 20 January 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicants shall lodge their written submissions on or before 29 January 2020, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.  The applicants filed their written submissions dated 29 January 2020 by post.  They were received by the court on 19 February 2020.  As the appeals registry was closed due to the public health situation in Hong Kong, we shall take it that their written submissions were filed on time. 

4.In the applicants’ Notice of Motion, they made various complaints about the decisions made by the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. These issues had been canvassed before the Judge. 

5.In their written submissions, the applicants repeated their non-refoulement claims under the heads of BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk, torture risk and persecution risk.  They also stated that their lives are in danger if they returned to their home country in light of their religion and the recent condition in India. 

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion. 

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

9.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 13 January 2020 is dismissed. 

The applicants, unrepresented, acted in person.