Atiq Ahmad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 478/2021, [2024] HKCA 414

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 478 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2750 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

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 claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected 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 30 November 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 7 December 2023, the applicant gave notice that the “Court of Final Appeal” will be moved on an application for an order that this court’s judgment be set aside.  As the document was filed in this court, we shall treat it as an application to this court for leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the lack of language assistance provided to him is an error of law or procedure, evidence of procedural unfairness, or failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness – a matter that has already been dealt with in this court’s judgment.

3.In his written submissions lodged on 21 December 2023, the applicant repeated his complaints about the lack of language assistance and said that he seeks a reconsideration of this case with language and legal assistance.

4.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.

5.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. 

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person