Azhar Hussain v. Wesley Wong, Adjudicator for Petition Team of Security Bureau

CACV 445/2020

[2022] HKCA 713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 445 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 856 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Hon S T Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  25 May 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 7 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 31 August 2020 refusing to grant extension of time and dismissing his application for leave 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 decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 13 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that :

“I am the applicant herein. In the order give the court a more complete picture about my case I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COI information officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims. I am requested to court could you please save my life’s. Bundle of thanks” [sic]

4.The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of the same by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 17 May 2021. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.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.

6.The Notice of Motion does not engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal given at [15] – [17] of our judgment. The applicant failed to identify any supposed error in our judgment and has thus failed to advance any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 13 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person