Re Mohammed Saqib

CAMP 402/2021

[2022] HKCA 1799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 402 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1777 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Cheung JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 12 December 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 25 February 2022, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 29 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review out of time. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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 5 May 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated, inter alia, that he disagreed with the decision of this court, and reiterated the dangers he may face should he be refouled.

4.In the affirmation filed on 5 May 2022, the applicant deposed that he “did not get the order on time”.

5.In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, and affirmation, 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 the judgment of this court.  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 therefore 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 5 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person