Re Hakeem Fazal

CACV 203/2025, [2026] HKCA 1630

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3745 OF 2019)

_________________

_________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 31 October 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Philips Wong of 10 April 2025 refusing to grant leave for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 3 November 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ I do not agree with the decision of the Court. This decision is unfair. I have severe problem in my home country. I can not go back to my country. I request you to scrutinize my problem.’

4.The applicant’s written submissions (lodged on 17 November 2025) stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant has ‘life threat’ in his home country where the situation is getting worse;

2)  The applicant’s home country has prevalent corruption;

3)  Both the Director of Immigration and the Board dismissed the applicant’s claims;

4)  The High Court also rejected the applicant’s claim for judicial review;

5)  The applicant hopes that the Court of Appeal would grant him judicial review.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 3 November 2025 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person