Re Ahmad Bilal

CAMP 326/2021

[2022] HKCA 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 326 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1686 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 30 December 2021, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 2010) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 9 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.On 4 March 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation in support applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has lodged his written submissions on 27 April 2022.     

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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 at [6].  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484), it 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 applicant’s notice of motion states the following :

‘ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on 6th February 2018, refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director hereby the Director was required to give reason(s) justifying the decision.’

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, he recited case authorities that are frequently used in general non‑refoulement claims and statutory reference without detailing how those principles related to his case.  The applicant’s affirmation merely stated that ‘there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal.’

8.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal is devoid of merits and we dismiss the notice of motion dated 4 March 2022 accordingly.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person