RE OHID MOHAMMAD

CAMP 283/2021

[2022] HKCA 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 283 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2441 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 20 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA) judgment of 9 December 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1852). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 23 January 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review to the applicant ([2020] HKCFI 246).

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 his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION REJECTED MY CLAIM. THE ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD REJECTED MY CLAIM TOO. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE COURT OF APPEAL CONTINUE THE HIGH COURT DECISION, I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of the present application.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  He did not raise any ground of appeal or identify any specific errors in the Judgment in his Notice of Motion.

7.  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.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 20 December 2021 is dismissed.