Re Shahid

CACV 364/2021

[2023] HKCA 246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 364 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2738 OF 2018)

______________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 12 July 2022 ([2022] HKCA 999) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ To given on 16 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 15 August 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  

4.The Notice of Motion only stated the following:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non-refoulement claim. I was not satisfied so I came to the High Court for leave to appeal for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my apply. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

5.The applicant has filed a supporting affirmation saying that the Notice of Motion was out of time.  In fact, he was not out of time as he had 28 days to lodge his appeal and the deadline fell within the Summer Vacation (s.31(1) High Court Ordinance Cap.4).

6.Pursuant to directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 15 August 2022, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 29 August 2022.  He failed to do so and lodged his written submissions a day late; the delay was negligible. In any event, the written submissions only reiterated the applicant’s factual background allegations and his general disagreement with the rejection of his non-refoulement claim by the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the court.  

7.This Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing, which we consider appropriate.

8.Section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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.

9.Having regard to this court’s judgment, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  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 granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 15 August 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person