上訴法庭（雜項）Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA6/5/2021[2021] HKCA 613
CAMP152/2019
A A
CAMP152/2019
B B
[2021] HKCA 613
C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D D
COURT OF APPEAL
E MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 152 OF 2019 E
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 138/2017)
F F
-----------------------------------
G G
RE: HAIDER ALI Applicant
H H
-----------------------------------
I I
Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court
J Date of Judgment: 7 May 2021 J
K ___________________ K
L JUDGMENT L
___________________
M M
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
N N
O 1. On 30 December 2020, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) O
handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for
P P
extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
Q Woodcock (“the judge”) on 10 November 2017 refusing leave to the Q
applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review
R R
the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing
S his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his S
non-refoulement claim.
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s
B B
reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment. 1 We will not repeat
C them here. C
D D
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion
E dated 20 January 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. E
The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
F F
“…I arrived in Hong Kong in 2009. I have spent half my life in
G H.K. This is clear incompetence of the Director of Immigration. G
He spent twelve (12) years for investigation and self imposed
Decision…
H H
The Director of Immigration did not deny my request. Nor did
I he seek information from Pakistan about my request. I
Verify for justice judge me in the light of the investigation and the
J way of the details from Pakistan. J
My request need to be reconsidered. The case of forced to leave
K K
the H.K. for self imposed reasons by immigration. I am not
satisfy of the Director of Immigration non his self impoased
L decision. L
I came to Hong Kong in the struggle to save my life. I still
M believed that my life is in danger in Pakistan. M
I don’t want die for no reason!”
N N
O
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the O
application on 2 February 2021. In the written submission, the applicant
P P
reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is
Q
unsafe for him to return. He repeated his complaint about the Director’s Q
decision in the Notice of Motion and claimed that he has “audio video
R R
evidence of incompetence of this sectors”.
S S
T T
1
See [2020] HKCA 1079
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and
B B
written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of
C determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, C
determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
D D
E 6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds E
for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant
F F
has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for
G the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of G
the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any
H H
such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
I I
7. The applicant did not raise any of the grounds in this
J J
application when he renewed his application for extension of time to appeal
K before us. As we have explained before, it is not the practice of the Court K
of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in
L L
2
the hearing before it; nor generally is it the practice of the Court of Final
M Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court M
of Appeal.3 Further, none of these grounds is related to an error in our
N N
judgment and they are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.
O O
8. As for the bare assertion that it is unsafe for the applicant to
P P
return, the Board dismissed the appeal to the Board on the ground that the
Q applicant’s case was not credible. The applicant has failed to establish any Q
public law error in the Board’s Decision.
R R
S S
2
See Ageas Insurance Co (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV 65/2014, unreported, 19 May 2015,
at [7] to [9]; and The Law Society of Hong Kong v A Solicitor, CACV 78/2014, unreported, 10 July
T 2015, at [4] to [7]. T
3
See Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates Ltd (2002) 5 HKCFAR 356 at [39].
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the
B B
“otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
C C
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 January 2021
D D
is dismissed.
E E
F F
G G
H H
(Carlye Chu) (Aarif Barma) (Thomas Au)
I Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal I
J J
The applicant acting in person
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
CAMP152/2019
B B
[2021] HKCA 613
C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D D
COURT OF APPEAL
E MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 152 OF 2019 E
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 138/2017)
F F
-----------------------------------
G G
RE: HAIDER ALI Applicant
H H
-----------------------------------
I I
Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court
J Date of Judgment: 7 May 2021 J
K ___________________ K
L JUDGMENT L
___________________
M M
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
N N
O 1. On 30 December 2020, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) O
handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for
P P
extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
Q Woodcock (“the judge”) on 10 November 2017 refusing leave to the Q
applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review
R R
the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing
S his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his S
non-refoulement claim.
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s
B B
reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment. 1 We will not repeat
C them here. C
D D
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion
E dated 20 January 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. E
The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
F F
“…I arrived in Hong Kong in 2009. I have spent half my life in
G H.K. This is clear incompetence of the Director of Immigration. G
He spent twelve (12) years for investigation and self imposed
Decision…
H H
The Director of Immigration did not deny my request. Nor did
I he seek information from Pakistan about my request. I
Verify for justice judge me in the light of the investigation and the
J way of the details from Pakistan. J
My request need to be reconsidered. The case of forced to leave
K K
the H.K. for self imposed reasons by immigration. I am not
satisfy of the Director of Immigration non his self impoased
L decision. L
I came to Hong Kong in the struggle to save my life. I still
M believed that my life is in danger in Pakistan. M
I don’t want die for no reason!”
N N
O
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the O
application on 2 February 2021. In the written submission, the applicant
P P
reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is
Q
unsafe for him to return. He repeated his complaint about the Director’s Q
decision in the Notice of Motion and claimed that he has “audio video
R R
evidence of incompetence of this sectors”.
S S
T T
1
See [2020] HKCA 1079
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and
B B
written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of
C determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, C
determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
D D
E 6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds E
for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant
F F
has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for
G the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of G
the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any
H H
such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
I I
7. The applicant did not raise any of the grounds in this
J J
application when he renewed his application for extension of time to appeal
K before us. As we have explained before, it is not the practice of the Court K
of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in
L L
2
the hearing before it; nor generally is it the practice of the Court of Final
M Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court M
of Appeal.3 Further, none of these grounds is related to an error in our
N N
judgment and they are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.
O O
8. As for the bare assertion that it is unsafe for the applicant to
P P
return, the Board dismissed the appeal to the Board on the ground that the
Q applicant’s case was not credible. The applicant has failed to establish any Q
public law error in the Board’s Decision.
R R
S S
2
See Ageas Insurance Co (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV 65/2014, unreported, 19 May 2015,
at [7] to [9]; and The Law Society of Hong Kong v A Solicitor, CACV 78/2014, unreported, 10 July
T 2015, at [4] to [7]. T
3
See Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates Ltd (2002) 5 HKCFAR 356 at [39].
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the
B B
“otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
C C
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 January 2021
D D
is dismissed.
E E
F F
G G
H H
(Carlye Chu) (Aarif Barma) (Thomas Au)
I Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal I
J J
The applicant acting in person
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V