Iqbal Qamar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 75/2021

[2021] HKCA 1979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 75 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 254 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 22 November 2021

Date of Judgment: 29 December 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.On 15 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision dated 26 August 2020 of Campbell-Moffat J refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal against her earlier decision dated 15 June 2020 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 8 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“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 on 23 June 2017 …

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

3.In his affirmation dated 8 November 2021, the Applicant states that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal”, and in his written submissions dated 22 November 2021, he sets out some general principles of law without explaining how they are relevant to his application for leave to appeal.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.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 Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person