Re Muhammad Nazeer

CAMP 556/2022, [2024] HKCA 918

On an intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 556 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 56 of 2016)

__________________________

__________________________

AND

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 88 OF 2021)

__________________________

__________________________

(CONSOLIDATED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF

DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE BRUNO CHAN DATED 1 MARCH 2022)

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 30 July 2024, this Court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 909) refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 29 March 2022 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 5 August 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions of the Registrar, the applicant has not put in any written submission to support the application.

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 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 set out the following grounds in support of the application:

(1)  The decision maker just relied on country-of-origin information (“COI”) and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim.

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration.

(3)  Actual life situation is different from what is mentioned in the COI. The officer and the court prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities.

(4)  The judge did not apply the law properly.  

7.The grounds set out in the notice of motion do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.