Re Yasir Muhammad

CAMP 166/2022

[2023] HKCA 430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 166 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2322 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 1533)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 November 2021 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 1 November 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 15 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 include that the applicant relied on his friends and NGOs but he did not get any translation from them.  He stated that he was late when appealing in the Court of First Instance because of lack of knowledge.  He stated that his story was genuine.  He stated that the Court was not fair.  He stated that the political party from his home country was too powerful.

7.In the applicant’s written submission, he stated general non - refoulement legal principle and statutory authority without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.  He then stated that he did not provide proof at the hearing before the Board because he was in prison.  He stated that there was political pressure in his home country.  He stated that the army is in control in his country.  He stated that the situation is corrupt.

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