Ahmed Sheraz v. Director of Immigration and Another

CAMP 17/2018

[2018] HKCA 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 17 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 347 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

Before: Hon Chu, Barma and Poon JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 1 June 2018

Date of Judgment: 15 June 2018

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 7 May 2018, we dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of High Court Judge Toh (“the Judge”) of 19 January 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion dated 15 May 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions dated 1 June 2018.  In substance, he reiterated his assertion that he could not go back to Pakistan because of the alleged fear that his life would be in danger by relying on the same matters that he had previously raised.

3.Having considered the matter, we take the view that the application can be properly disposed of without an oral hearing.  We now hand down our judgment.

4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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.  Here, the applicant reiterated that there was a cogent explanation for his delay in taking out the summons for extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review.  He also repeated his earlier submissions on the merits of his case. 

5.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 7 May 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  By simply repeating his earlier explanation for the delay and submissions on the merits of his case, the applicant has failed to meet the threshold under section 22(1)(b) entitling him to be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  We accordingly refuse his application and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person