Re Mughal Zia Ur Rehman

CAMP 126/2021, [2023] HKCA 1188

On Appeal From [2021] HKCA 1622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 126 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 781 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s request to re-open his claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was refused by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 11 November 2021.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 31 August 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In his written submissions attached to the affirmation accompanying the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he did not file the “SCF” form (supplementary claim form) in time because he had mental illness at the time. He previously failed to provide hard evidence of that because of the language barrier, his lack of knowledge of legal proceedings, and lack of assistance from the authorities or the Duty Lawyer Service. He asked for a chance to submit a claim form again.

3.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. Further, the Notice of Motion was over 21 months after our judgment, and the very substantial delay has not been explained.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person