Re Zaid Iqbal

CAMP 64/2018

[2018] HKCA 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 64 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 648/2017)

---------------------------

---------------------------

Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 5 October 2018

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 19 July 2018, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 25 April 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 6 August 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that:

“1. The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on the 19^th July 2018 refusing my application for judicial review.

2. The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the Decision of the Director whereby the Director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.”

4.Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 August 2018, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we can find no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.  Both grounds in the notice of motion lacked particulars and are bound to fail.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 August 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person