Re Hossain Mohammad Rahat
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 225/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 October 2021.
1. On 23 March 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Woodcock (“the judge”) on 26 January 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 clai
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
CAMP 225/2019 [2021] HKCA 1517 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 225 OF 2019 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 368/2017)
-------------------------------------------- Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 23 March 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Woodcock (“the judge”) on 26 January 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, 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 filed on 21 May 2021, 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 21 May 2021, the applicant deposed that:
5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 15 June 2021. In the written submission, the applicant submitted that:
6.The written submissions also contained references to a number of provisions and cases, for the most part without relating them to the applicant’s case. 7.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 documents filed. 8.The applicant claimed that he did not receive the judgment within time but he did not give any particulars. This is not in our view a reasonable excuse for the delay. We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the application. 9.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. 10.Neither the Notice of Motion, affirmation nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 11.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 12.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 21 May 2021 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person [1] See [2021] HKCA 375 | ||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 225/2019