Re Haider Zeeshan

CAMP 64/2019

[2019] HKCA 1142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 64 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 806 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 5 September 2019, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 5 December 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 20 September 2019, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant had also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.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.

6.In the notice of motion, the applicant put forward the following matters as his proposed grounds of appeal:

(1)  There is some error in law.

(2)  The decision maker only relied on country of origin information.

(3)  His life would be in danger and his family would be in big trouble if he were to return to Pakistan. 

7.In his written submission, the applicant reiterated that he could not return to Pakistan as he feared for his life.  He asked the Court to reconsider his case and to save his life.  An article about Pakistan was also attached to the written submission.   

8.The matters put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They only relate to the assessment of his claim, but do not involve any question of great general or public importance, or otherwise, that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  The requirement for granting leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance is therefore not met.

9.For the above reasons, we will not extend the time for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The notice of motion is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.