Re Shah Mazloom

CAMP 430/2022, [2024] HKCA 665

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 430 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1478 OF 2018 AND HCAL NO. 2733 OF 2019 (CONSOLIDATED))

________________________

________________________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 30 December 2021)

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

1.On 31 July 2023, this Court handed down decision ([2023] HKCA 906) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 30 December 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 9 August 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals also dated 9 August 2023, the applicant was to lodge and serve on or before 23 August 2023 written submissions failing which he will be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by this Court based on the available materials. The applicant has not lodged or served written submission by the stipulated deadline.

4.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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.

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

6.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.

7.The notice of motion stated that :

‘TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM BUT I DID NOT AGREE. I APPLIED LEAVE TO THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GIVE ME JUSTICE.’

8.We are of the view that no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

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

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person