Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 565/2020

[2021] HKCA 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 565 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 404/2018)

__________________________

RE:

SHAFIQUE

Applicant

__________________________

Before:

Hon Lam VP and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

22 July 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 31 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 27 April 2021. In that judgment we struck out and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal because he failed to apply for extension of time to bring the appeal despite repeated reminders.

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 stated that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed his non-refoulement claim, that he applied to the court for leave, and that he did not get justice on the total process. However, he did not state any grounds for leave to appeal to the CFA. He did not explain why he did not apply for extension of time to appeal.

4.Despite the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 31 May 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 June 2021, the Applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of this application.

5.The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.

6.In our judgment, 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.