Re Ahmed Waqar

CAMP 8/2021

[2022] HKCA 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 8 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 267 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  28 July 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 25 August 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 23 June 2020 refusing to grant extension of time for the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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 out of time on 12 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that he disagreed with this court’s judgment and “get the judgment after the schedule time to appeal”.

4.In the affirmation filed on 12 October 2021, the applicant merely acknowledged that he had failed to file his Notion of Motion in time.

5.In his written submissions, which were lodged late on 9 November 2021, the applicant simply repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.

7.The applicant claimed that he did not receive “the judgment” (assuming he meant the letter enclosing a copy of this court’s judgment)  in time but he did not explain how or when he eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.In any event, 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.

9.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).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 October 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person