Re Raja Ibrar Hussain

CAMP 65/2021

[2022] HKCA 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 65 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1753 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 15 November 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 10 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 decision 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 15 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that “there is some error in law in [his] decision”, without providing any particulars or basis for his complaint.

4.In the affirmation filed on 15 December 2021, the applicant alleged that the decision of the Court of First Instance was “unlawful”, but did not point to any supposed errors of this court.

5.In his written submissions lodged on 29 December 2021, the applicant repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan, as well as setting out trite principles applicable to 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 failed to explain how and when he eventually came to know about this court’s judgment.  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 15 December 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person