Re Salim Md

CAMP 360/2021

[2022] HKCA 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 360 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1284 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision:  1 November 2022

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1.On 25 April 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 567)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 4 November 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 20 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion and an affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 6 June 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

6.The grounds stated in the notice of motion are summarised as follows :

1)  The Judges were wrong for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness;

2)  The Judges were wrong for not applying the principle of irrationality;

3)  The decision maker relied on country of origin information which ‘favour on rejecting’ his claim;

4)  The Courts ignored evidence of violence;

5)  The Judge did not apply the law properly;

6)  The applicant will be killed if he returns home.

7.In the applicant’s affirmation, the applicant explained his reasons for delay when there was no delay in fact in the filing of his notice of motion.

8.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated some general non-refoulement legal principles and statutory authorities without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.

9.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person