Re Ali Jamshaid
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 6/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 May 2022.
1. On 25 August 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 DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 30 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CAMP 6/2021 [2022] HKCA 585 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 511 OF 2018) -----------------------------------
----------------------------------- Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court Date of Judgment: 6 May 2022 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 25 August 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 DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 30 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration. 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 out of time on 7 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
4.In the affirmation filed on 7 October 2021, the applicant deposed:
5.In his written submissions lodged on 21 October 2021, the applicant repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan, as well as citing various well-established authorities, but failing to elaborate on how they were misapplied or contravened in the processing of his non-refoulement claim. 6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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. 7.The applicant simply claimed that he did not file his Notice of Motion in time because he did not “have money” and that he is “uneducated”. These are not valid excuses and we are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. 8.In any event, the matters advanced 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. 9.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 7 October 2021 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 6/2021