Re Mahmood Tariq

CACV 61/2026, [2026] HKCA 1876

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 61 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1103 OF 2021)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 20 April 2026, 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 10 April 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 617).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 13 January 2026, by which the Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2026] HKCFI 269).

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 inform to the Court of Appeal.  There are some error in my law maker authorities and the decision made by the both Respondent’s because they were relied on some web news which officially not recognized.  This decision is very unfair to me and it’s makes me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a Risk State in my home country where my life is not safe.  So I humble request to this court to Reconsider my case.” (sic)

5.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge written submissions in support of his present application.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, he has failed to specifically point out any error in the Judgment.  His complaints are all directed at the Board’s Decision which are not proper grounds of appeal.  His intended appeal is plainly a nonstarter.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their 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.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person