Re Mohammad Hasim

CAMP 17/2022

[2023] HKCA 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 17 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1468 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 11 October 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 1506) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 24 November 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 19 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 not lodged a written submission by the stipulated deadline as set out by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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 :

‘ Dear Sir / Madam,

With due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I am not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal, because this decision made me unhappy and made me liable to remove from Hong Kong to risk state for my life in India. The decision maker did not consider my appeal properly. My life is danger in India. If I return back to my home country I will be killed by my enemy, but the decision maker did not scrutinize my problem and my summons for the extension of time. They just made it simply hearsay. By making this decision, the decision makers lost their discretion in the Judgment.’

7.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.

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

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person