Ali Mohsin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 446/2021

[2022] HKCA 789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 446 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1658 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  26 May 2022

Date of Judgment:  9 June 2022

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

1.On 18 February 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 15 January 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office / Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 30 July 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review but I wish the Court of Final Appeal will consider my leave to apply for judicial review.”

3.In his written submissions dated 26 May 2022, the Applicant repeated his claim that he faced a “life threat” in his home country, but failed to point to any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or 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