Re Ali Liaqat

CAMP 355/2022, [2025] HKCA 156

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 355 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2852 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 7 August 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 30 July 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 714). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 31 March 2022, by which the Deputy Judge refused to grant extension of time and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 927).

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, the applicant stated:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 August 2024.  In those submissions, the applicant cited various case authorities regarding high standards of fairness and section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, concerning the late filing of notice of appeal to the Board.  However, he did not specify how they were relevant or applicable to the facts of his case.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  His allegations are mainly directed at the Director and the Board’s Decisions and he fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment.  They do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

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

8.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.

9.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 7 August 2024 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person