Re Mushtaq Shahid

CAMP 49/2023, [2024] HKCA 919

On intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 49 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2151 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 30 July 2024, this Court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 647) refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 17 August 2022 which refused to extend the time for him to apply for judicial review and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 12 August 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support the application.

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 has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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 notice of motion only states that the applicant’s dangerous situation was being disregarded, but does not contain any grounds in support of the application.

7.The applicant’s written submission makes the following points:

(1)  The applicant’s application was unfairly dismissed, and the applicant was penalised for something he had no knowledge of.  He had no knowledge of the process and the time limit, which caused the delay.

(2)  The danger facing the applicant is obvious, but the Director of Immigration causally dismissed it due to the low level of torture.  However, with the current political situation in Pakistan, the possibility of threats cannot be dismissed.

(3)  The applicant’s fear is not ungrounded and he has substantial grounds to appeal and receive non-refoulement protection. 

8.We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of motion and written submission do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all concern the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances, and do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  Further, the reference to political situation in Pakistan has no apparent relevance because the applicant’s non-refoulment claim is based on fear of harm from his paternal uncle and cousin due to a land dispute.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person. sented, acted in person.