Re Naseer Tarab Ul Hassan

CAMP 247/2021

[2022] HKCA 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 247 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 772 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 16 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA)  judgment of 9 December 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1849). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J dated 14 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review ([2018] HKCFI 1748).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

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

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I APPLYED TO THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION FOR MY NON REFOULEMENT CLAIM. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD REJECT MY CLAIM. MY APPLY TOO REFUSED BY THE HIGH COURT. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL” (sic)

5.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 30 December 2021.  In his written submissions, he stated that he had life threat in his own country and his enemy disturbed him so much he left his country.  He claimed that he told all of his problems to his immigration officer, and as his case officer and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dismissed his non-refoulement claim and the High Court dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review, he hoped the Court of Final Appeal would grant him leave.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly devoid of merit.  None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions has identified any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of his fear to return to his home country simply do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.  They are also fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

7.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

8.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 16 December 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person