Re Karim Fazal

CAMP 490/2021

[2022] HKCA 974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 490 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 582 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  12 July 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 22 April 2022, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J dated 20 October 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision dated 13 April 2018, by which the Judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office by which the applicant’s non-refoulement claim and appeal were both refused.

2.The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant simply stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished “the Court of Final Appeal will consider [his] leave to apply for judicial review”.

4.In his written submissions lodged on 10 May 2022, the applicant merely repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.We are of the view that the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 27 April 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person