Re Muhammad Razzaq

CAMP 47/2022

[2023] HKCA 427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 47 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2873 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1.On 17 October 2022, this Court handed down decision ([2022] HKCA 1530)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 11 June 2020 pertaining to his own withdrawal of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 27 October 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 8 November 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484)  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 grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion is as follows :

‘ I would like to infom[r] Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrayed a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated general non-refoulement legal principle and statutory authority without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.

8.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.

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, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person