RE KHAN AMIR

CAMP 307 /2022, [2024] HKCA 769

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 307 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2211 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

1.  On 15 September 2023, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA)  handed down judgment ([2023] HKCA 1042)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 24 November 2021 refusing his application to extend time for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 29 September 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged written submission within time.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 notice of motion stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant did not know that his failure to lodge skeleton submission would preclude him from having an oral hearing.  The applicant did not know about the legal process as he did not receive translation service and relied on friends;

2)  The applicant complains about not having legal assistance and his claim was rejected by the Board; and

3)  The applicant believes it is unsafe to return to his home country as the local army would kill those who do not support their political stance.

7.  In the applicant’s written submission, he referred to well-established principles in refoulement cases, bald statements of procedural unfairness and reference to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance.  He also claimed that he has married a Pakistan woman and has a daughter.  It is not easy to take them back to Pakistan.  

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

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

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