RE KHAN TAHIR

CAMP 81/2023, [2024] HKCA 782

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 81 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2124 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.  On 25 January 2024, this Court handed down decision ([2024] HKCA 94) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 August 2022 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 29 January 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 14 February 2024.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) 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.

6.  The applicant stated the following in the notice of motion :

‘ THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL FOR JUSTICE.’

7.  In summary the applicant stated the following in the written submissions :

1)  the applicant has life threat in his home country in that one Jabeen wanted to kill him;

2)  the Director of Immigration, the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the courts all reject the applicant’s claim; and

3)  the applicant will ‘talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker’.

8.  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.  All the matters contained in the applicant’s written submission are matters that are within the provenance of the Board.  They do not show how or where the Judge made any error of law or procedural unfairness.

9.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

11.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.