RE ZABAR SHIEKH

CAMP 452/2022, [2026] HKCA 860

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 452 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1095/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 20 March 2024, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 20 October 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to appeal against his decision dated 21 July 2022 by which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, 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 26 March 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant explained (as he did in the substantive appeal and in the court below)  the reasons for filing his Form 86 out of time.  He further contended that his claim was “genuine and based on true story of life due to risk from the current ruling party Awami League”.  

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 5 April 2024, the applicant in essence repeated the matters he stated in the Notice of Motion, adding that his wife’s and his children’s cases were being “differently assessed” and he was still waiting for “the decision”, and that they “all face risk upon refoulement”.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises 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 26 March 2024 is dismissed.