RE LUQMAN MUHAMMAD

CAMP 67/2019

[2021] HKCA 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 67 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 969/2017)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 25 October 2019, this court (Cheung and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 19 December 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application for leave to appeal, 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 dated 28 October 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. I didn’t failure to lodge of Skeleton Submission would lost me oral hearing. I specifically requested for one. I relied too much on friends as no translation for me.

2. Judges were procedurally unfair in my decision because I told them in written submission that I need extension to solve my problem in Pakistan.  My aunt will specially will visit next year to solve my problem.  She will visit to Pakistan from England with her husband to help me to solve my problem, so help me give me extension until they solve my problem.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 11 November 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.  He also identified a number of errors allegedly committed by the Board and the Director and cited a number of decisions of the Court of Final Appeal and the Court of Appeal.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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 in the Notice of Motion and written submission.  

7.  As to the matters mentioned by the applicant, the issue of the alleged danger upon his return was already addressed at [14] of our judgment.  As for the absence of a hearing, we note that the applicant did not request a hearing for his leave for judicial review application in the Form 86.  Under RHC Order 53 rule 3(3), the judge may in these circumstances determine the application without a hearing.  We have also given reasons for not holding a hearing for the leave to appeal application at [15] of our judgment.

8.  As for the other grounds raised in the written submission, they are in very broad terms and lack particulars, and do not demonstrate any arguable error in our judgment.

9.  In our view, none of the grounds mentioned by the application are 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 28 October 2019 is dismissed.