Nasiruddin Miah v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 63/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 November 2021.
1. On 28 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 June 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 29 May 2018.
Cited by 1 case
|
CAMP 63/2021 [2021] HKCA 1635 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 63 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1421 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court Date of Written Submission: 25 October 2021 Date of Judgment: 15 November 2021 ____________________ JUDGMENT ____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 28 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 June 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 29 May 2018. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 11 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision. 4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance. 5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 63/2021