Mohamed Naseer Mohamed Asmi and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 549/2021

[2022] HKCA 1491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 549 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1406 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  17 October 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.On 18 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 15 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 2 May 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 April 2017.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 14 September 2022, the 1^st Applicant, on behalf of himself and the 2^nd to 4^th Applicants, applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion has attached to it a document titled “Grounds of Appeal”. However, that document does not in fact set out any ground(s) of appeal against the CA Judgment, or point to any alleged error in the CA Judgment. It merely repeats the factual basis of the Applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection, makes some comments on the issue of police and state protection in Sri Lanka, and also seeks to explain the Applicants’ delay for lodging the appeal against the order of the Judge.

3.The Applicants have failed to file written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 14 September 2022.

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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

7.For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in this application as a mere irregularity without rendering the 3^rd and 4^th Applicants’ application a nullity.

The Applicants, acting in person