Re Iqbal Ansar

CAMP 510/2021

[2022] HKCA 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 510 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1005 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before :  Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision : 14 November 2022

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 4 May 2022 this Court (Chu VP and Cheung JA) handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 622]) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 9 April 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim (‘Decision’).

2.On 10 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has lodged a written submission.

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 Decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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 :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration. As well as the decision made by the adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal board. This is towards my life still in danger in Pakistan.’

7.The applicant in his written submissions repeats the arguments pursued at his renewed application to extend time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (set out in [20]-[25] of the Decision).

8.We have considered those matters in our Decision.  There is no need for us to repeat our reasons again.

9.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

11.In the circumstances, the intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal has no prospect of success.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person