Re Shafi Ibrar

CAMP 129/2019

[2020] HKCA 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 129 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 133 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung, Yuen and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Decision:  23 April 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 13 November 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 1 September 2017 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 20 November 2019, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3The 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, refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2.  The decision maker just relied on COL information, and my previous facts which were in favour o rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation than mentioned COL information, officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

3.  Procedural unfairness ̴ The decision is batray and formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claim.

4.  The Judge did not apply the law properly.’

1.4The applicant lodged his written submission in support of his notice of motion on 4 December 2019.  He cited legal authorities and statutory references commonly used in non-refoulement cases.  He stated that the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his credibility.

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion filed on 20 November 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person