Idrees Muhammad Usman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 442/2021

[2022] HKCA 829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 442 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 360 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 23 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for “leave to appeal” out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 10 August 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against his earlier order dated 4 May 2021 whereby the Judge refused to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 5 May 2022 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 Judge [was] wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration … dated 4^th May 2021 refusing my application for judicial review.

2 The learned Judge [was] wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural [fairness] to the decision of the Director whereby he was required to give reasons justifying the decision.”

3.In his written submissions dated 19 May 2022, the Applicant set out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but failed to explain how or why they are relevant or applicable to his case.

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