Re Ejaj Ahmed Mohammed

CAMP 134/2021

[2022] HKCA 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 134 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 299 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Decision:  4 May 2022

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 25 October 2021, this Court handed down a decision ([2021] HKCA 1571)  (the ‘CA Decision’)  dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 11 December 2019, which : (i) refused the applicant’s application for extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 12 April 2017; and (ii) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the CA Decision.  We will not repeat them here.

3.On 8 November 2021, the applicant applies by a notice of motion dated 5 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice of motion, the applicant alleges that :

‘ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of [l]aw for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2.   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.

3.   There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on CO[I] information any my previous facts [sic], where were favor on rejecting my claim [sic].

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

4.Pursuant to the directions given by Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 November 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 22 November 2021.  He failed to do so and as directed by the Registrar, he will be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by the Court of Appeal based on available evidence.

5.The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. As it is appropriate to do so, we proceeded to determine this application on paper.

II.   Legal principles

6.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484), 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.

III.   Our view

7.Having regard to the CA Decision, the matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion have no merits.

8.The matters put forward in the notice of motion are just bare assertions without particulars or elaboration and do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.

9.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.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.

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

IV.   Disposition

11.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 5 November 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person