Amin Muhammad Alias Muhammad Amin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 90 /2024, [2025] HKCA 711

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 90 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1447 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 20 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1079). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 10 March 2023 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 December 2024.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.The applicant stated the following as his grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion filed on 26 November 2024:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwheming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.He made the same written submissions as his previous submissions to the Court of Appeal in his application for extension of time to appeal.

Analysis and disposition

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

6.The applicant’s grounds in the Notice of Motion were not raised in the leave application before the Court of First Instance or in his previous application before the Court of Appeal.  It is not open to the applicant to put forward these grounds for the first time at this late stage of the proceedings, well outside the time limit for bringing judicial review proceedings.  In any event, these grounds are just bare assertions without elaboration or evidence in support.

7.As for the applicant’s submissions, this court has given reasons for rejecting his contentions in the judgment dated 20 November 2024.  In the present application, the applicant failed to identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 26 November 2024.