Re Ahmmed Ali

CACV 37/2022, [2024] HKCA 450

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 37 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 544 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.By a judgment dated 20 March 2024 ([2024] HKCA 267) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 12 January 2022 ([2022] HKCFI 124), whereby the Deputy Judge refused his application for extension of time and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 26 March 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant alleged that the court failed to consider the fact that he could not return to his country of origin.  He asserted that his BOR2 and BOR3 risks were real and that he would face terrible risk from his enemies.  He also claimed that the court failed to consider the country of origin conditions that the authority of his country would not protect him from his enemies.

6.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions

7.At the outset, his intended appeal has no merit at all.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Further, as stated at [19] of the Judgment, assessment of evidence, country of original materials and risk of harm are primarily matters within the province of the Board (and the Director) as primary decision makers.  This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak[2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman[2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  The applicant fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment with particulars.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

8.Further, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

10.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person