Re Tholiya Ajay

CAMP 264/2019

[2021] HKCA 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 264 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1007/2017)

___________________

___________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 7 June 2021

Date of Judgment: 16 July 2021

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 May 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 13 May 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 3 August 2018 refusing to grant an extension of time for his application for leave for judicial review.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

3.In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the Director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

3. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly.” [sic]

4.The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 7 June 2021.  Those submissions mostly consist of general statements of law quoted from case law, without stating how they specifically relate to or apply in respect of the judgment of 13 May 2021. 

5.The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 13 May 2021 for dismissing his application for extension of time to appeal.  In our view, he did not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in this Court’s judgment or the judgment of the court below.

6.There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person