RE MAJEED AMJAD

CACV 237/2022, [2024] HKCA 180

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 237 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2794 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 30 December 2022, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 June 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration directing that the applicant may not make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115).

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 5 January 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant did not set out any grounds, but merely stated that this court’s judgment was “not good for [him]” and that he wished to “go to [the Court of Final Appeal]”.  

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

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.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they 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 5 January 2023 is dismissed.