Re Zeeshan Khan

CAMP 221/2019

[2020] HKCA 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 221 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1667/2018)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.On 29 May 2020, the Applicant applied by Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court’s (Lam VP and Zervos JA) judgment of 21 May 2020.  In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 17 June 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.The Applicant set out the following grounds for leave to appeal in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ 1) judges were procedurally unfair because there was a significance in the part where they could not get obtain during decision. the torture claims supposed that if i am telling the truth but still i fails to establish cliam in BOR2 and BOR3.

2) Judges only notice the decision of TCAB that i can relocate any where in pakistan but they did not how its difficult to servive in other cities with out job.

3)     I did not failure to lodge skeleton submissions would coast me an appeal hearing. i specifically requested for one and i suppose i relied too much on my friend as no translation was give to me. and i was unable to hire a private lawyer because its need money to hire and quite expensive.”[sic]

4.He lodged submissions in support of the motion on 10 June 2020, which we have considered.  The submissions bear no relationship with the grounds set out in the notice of motion.  Nor do they engage with the reasons of the Court in dismissing his application.

5.The matters raised in the Notice of Motion are plainly not reasonably arguable.  The first point is clearly wrong since contrary to his claim the Board found his case to be incredible.  The Court explained in its judgment of 21 May 2020 the lack of merit in respect of the ground based on difficulty in internal relocation.  The applicant did not put forward any legal argument pinpointing to any error in that reasoning.

6.The third point is without merit.  There was no request for oral hearing in the summons and affirmation of 5 September 2019. Application for extension of time to appeal was brought by way of CAMP which is usually processed on the papers.  He already had an oral hearing before Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 2 August 2019.  

7.There is no question of great general or public importance.  Nor can we see any other grounds for submitting the case to the CFA for decision. 

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.  We dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person