RE MOHAMMAD KAMRAN

CACV 387/2022, [2024] HKCA 1141

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 387 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2177 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 28 March 2023, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 14 September 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review and dismissing his leave application. 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 appeal, 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 11 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that his life was still at risk in India, and also that he needed to remain in Hong Kong to take care of his wife and children.

4.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.  He is therefore debarred from lodging and relying on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise 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 11 April 2023 is dismissed.