Re Imran Sarwar

CAMP 390/2022, [2025] HKCA 466

On an intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 390 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 929 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 5 October 2023, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 7 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 20 October 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that he disagreed with the decisions of the Director and the Board and that he wanted to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

4.In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged his written submissions late (by 3 days).  Having regard to the relatively short delay, this court is prepared to consider those submissions, in which the applicant merely repeated the alleged dangers he faced should he be refouled.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 October 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person