Re Mohammad Nasim Akhtar

CAMP 395/2021

[2022] HKCA 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 395 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2725 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 15 December 2021, this Court handed down our judgment ([2021] HKCA 1863)  refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 3 June 2021 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 24 December 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support the 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.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that 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.The notice of motion stated that (i)  the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness whereby the Director of Immigration is required to give reasons justifying his decision; (ii)  the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principle of irrationality; (iii)  there is some error in the determination of the applicant’s case.  The decision maker just relied on country of origin information and facts that favour the rejection of his case; (iv)  the actual country condition is different.  The immigration officer and the High Court prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence committed on the minorities; (v)  the judge did not apply the law properly and there was procedural unfairness; and (vi)  the applicant’s life is in danger in his country. He will be killed or harmed upon his return.

7.The written submission lodged on 10 January 2022 is the same as the written submission lodged on 4 October 2021 in support of the application for extension of time to appeal (see [19] of our judgment).     

8.We are of the view that all the matters put forward by the applicant do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all relate to the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances.  It has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the notice of motion is dismissed.  

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.