Re Ehsan Ahmed

CAMP 183/2023, [2024] HKCA 447

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 183 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 32 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 27 March 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 20 March 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 262).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung’s (“the Judge”) dated 21 February 2023, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 357).

2.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.

3.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.

4.In his Notice of Motion filed on 27 March 2024, the applicant only stated:

“DIRECTOR DECISION AND ADJUDICATORS DECISION WAS NOT CORRECT AND HAD MANY ERROR OF PROCEEDING. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GIVE ME JUSTICE. SO I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 April 2024.  In those submissions, he reiterated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim and asserted that his life would be threatened upon refoulement as his enemies were very powerful.

6.The applicant’s application is devoid of merit.  He fails to give any proper ground of appeal or identify any specific error in the Judgment.  His allegations are all general, vague and bare without any specific particulars or evidence in support.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant fails 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.

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

The applicant acting in person