Re Alamgir
Read the full judgment text of CACV 252/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 April 2021.
1. On 16 April 2020, this court (Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 31 May 2019 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 decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV252/2019 [2021] HKCA 433 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 252 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1059 /2018) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 16 April 2020, this court (Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 31 May 2019 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 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 29 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
4.In the affirmation dated 29 June 2020, the applicant deposed that:
5.Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 June 2020, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court. 6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, 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. 7.Although the application is out of time by over one month no explanation for the delay has been provided. In any event the application lacks merit. 8.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. 9.Other than the bare assertion that the judgment refusing extension of time to appeal was unjust, the applicant did not identify any error in that judgment. The applicant has not provided any viable ground of appeal. 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 29 June 2020 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 252/2019