Ali Tariq v. Director of Immigration

CAMP 18/2018

[2018] HKCA 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 18 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 837 OF 2017)

____________

____________

Before :  Hon Chu, Barma and Poon JJA

Date of Written Submissions : 26 June 2018

Date of Judgment : 2 August 2018

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 9 May 2018, this Court (Barma and Poon JJA) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Chow J of 24 January 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion dated 30 May 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.Despite the directions given by the Registrar (Civil Appeals), the applicant has not filed any written submissions.  In the circumstances, we will deal with his application by reference to the grounds of appeal contained in the document attached to the notice of motion.  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.

3.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and the affirmation in support.  In substance, he reiterated the previous arguments that the Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness when considering his application for leave for judicial review.

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 merely repeated his earlier submission on the merits of his case which had already been rejected by the Court in the judgment of 9 May 2018.

5.For the reasons that the Court gave in the judgment of 9 May 2018, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  The applicant has failed to meet the threshold imposed by section 22(1)(b) to enable him to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

Miss Patricia Lam, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the putative respondent