Re Ahmar Khan

CACV 225/2023, [2026] HKCA 1658

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 1855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 308 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 17 May 2024, this Court handed down the judgment ([2024] HKCA 454) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 July 2023 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non ‑ refoulement claim. 

2.On 15 July 2024, the applicant filed a notice of intended application for leave to appeal enclosing draft grounds of appeal.  On 11 July 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant also lodged written submissions consisting of ten pages on 25 July 2025. 

2)  Our view

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.The applicant’s present application is out of time by over one year.  The applicant in his notice of intended application for leave to appeal draft grounds of appeal stated that his application was out of time because he only received the judgment very late when a friend found the judgment online.  He claimed to have never received any notice by post.  He claimed that he did not know how to search for judgment.  In his affirmation, the applicant claimed that he only got a call from the Immigration Department around mid‑July 2025 about the judgment dated 17 May 2024.  We are unable to accept the applicant’s various explanations.  They are all bare allegations unsupported by any evidence or elaborations.  It is trite that ignorance of the law is no excuse.  It is the applicant’s own responsibility for the conduct of his case rather than his friend.  According to court record, a copy of this Court’s judgment dated 17 May 2024 had been sent to the applicant’s last known correspondence address without returned undelivered.

7.As to the merit of the intended appeal, section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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.

8.In the notice of intended application for leave to appeal draft grounds of appeal, the applicant complained that it was unfair since he was unable to present his case orally, or that the Judge only considered his case on paper.  At [2] of our judgment, we have held that it was the applicant who failed to follow directions of the Court and lodge skeleton submissions by the stipulated deadline for his hearing to be eventually vacated and dealt with on paper.

9.The notice of motion simply stated bare allegations including that the judges were wrong for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness, the judges were wrong for not applying principle of irrationality, the decision maker simply relied on COL information to previous facts, the Court ignored evidence of violence, and the applicant will be killed if refouled.

10.The ten‑page written submission by the applicant contains an exhaustive reproduction of a number of statute laws including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), Basic Law, United Nations Convention Against Torture etc, and also a number of human rights related case authorities including Secretary for Security v Prabakar, ST v Betty Kwan etc, without reference or explanation on how they apply to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case.

11.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

12.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

13.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person