RE HASHEM SHIFAT

CAMP 47/2025, [2025] HKCA 1103

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 47 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 379 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 11 August 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 31 July 2025 (“the Judgment”)  ([2025] HKCA 703).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 27 December 2024, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 3510).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“With respect I want to inform you that I don’t agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal for the extension of time to appeal. Notice of Appeal is very important for my Judicial Review because my life is not safe in my home country and if I go back there I will be killed by my enemies. The learned Judges did not consider my application for the extension of time to appeal properly.” (sic)

5.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 22 August 2025.  In those submissions, she claimed that she did not receive the Leave Decision.  She further claimed that the Court was wrong for not having applied the principles of rationality and procedural unfairness. She alleged that her problems were very severe in her home country and that both the Court and the Board failed to analyse her case properly.  In particular, the Board failed to evaluate and make findings as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights existed in her home country and the availability of state protection.  She also claimed that she would be attacked and killed by her enemies upon refoulement.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As we have stated at [20] of the Judgment, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director.  The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].  In our view, the applicant failed to demonstrate with specific particulars any such error.  As we noted at [23] of the Judgment, the Judge had considered the facts of her case in detail and we agree with the Judge’s observations.  There is plainly no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.  The applicant did not identify any specific error in the Judgment.  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 11 August 2025 is dismissed.