RE MUHAMMAD IMRAN

CAMP 535/2022, [2026] HKCA 607

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 535 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2678/2018)

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 20 March 2024, this court (Chu VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 23 November 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to appeal against his decision dated 1 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. 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 application, 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 27 March 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“… there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and [court] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  The applicant, in his affirmation filed on 27 March 2024, stated that he did not wish to return to Pakistan because the “situation is very bad”, and that he appealed to the court to “save [his] life”.

5.  By his written submissions dated 9 April 2024, the applicant repeated his fears and complained about the decision of the Director and the Board.  He did not identify any alleged error in our judgment.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.

7.  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.

8.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars of the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  The same is true of the written submissions.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 March 2024 is dismissed.