RE MUHAMMAD IMRAN

CAMP 259 /2019

[2020] HKCA 523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 259 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 616 OF 2018)

________________________

_______________________

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 7 May 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment^[1] against the applicant refusing to grant leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 13 June 2019^[2]. By his decision, the judge refused the applicant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non‑refoulement protection claim. On 14 October 2019, the judge refused to grant leave to the applicant to appeal against his decision out of time as he considered that the intended appeal does not have any prospect of success^[3].

2.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.  He filed a Notice of Motion for this purpose on 18 May 2020.

3.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 22 May 2020 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submission on 29 May 2020.  It is appropriate to determine this application on paper accordingly.

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant asked for some time to stay in Hong Kong so that he can solve his problem in his home country being Pakistan. He also stated that he cannot go back to his home country because danger is still there.  

5.  The contentions stated in his written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1)  He is an asylum seeker from India^[4] and his life was not safe in his own country.

(2)  Death and torture in police custody of innocent persons are so common in his country and people who are responsible for this always enjoy freedom due to their power.  Even if the police sometimes arrest the culprits, they can bribe the police and come out due to the corrupt system.

(3)  His enemies are still looking for his whereabouts.  Whenever they see him, he will be killed by them.  Even the police cannot protect him from them.  His enemies have lots of manpower and strong political support which makes them so powerful.

(4)  The decisions refusing all his other appeals, without knowing the facts which are related to his case, will lead his life towards more danger.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.  The applicant repeated in essence the grounds and submissions he raised before the Court of Appeal in his previous application without pointing out any error in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in refusing his leave application.  His grounds do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and they are not supported by evidence.

8.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.