RE SHAHID MUHAMMAD

CAMP 499/2022, [2026] HKCA 708

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 499 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 947/2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2023, this court (Chu VP and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 26 August 2021 refusing 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 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 out of time on 26 March 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended inter alia that the judgment of this court was “not transparent” and “devoid of judicial merit”.  He further contended that “the Shia Group had allegedly [taken his] father” and that he was still on the run from his home country.  In a handwritten note attached to the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the factual background to the dangers he allegedly faced in his home country should he be refouled.

4.  For completeness, on 26 March 2025, the applicant wrote to the court stating that he was being detained at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution.

5.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have abandoned the right to rely on written submissions in the present application.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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.

7.  The applicant has proffered no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing his Notice of Motion.  The delay of around 1 year and 3 months is substantial, and thus the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.  We have however nonetheless proceeded to consider the merits of the application.

8.  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.  

9.  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.  

10.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 26 March 2025 is dismissed.