RE AHMAD ERSHAD alias MOHAMMAD IRSHAD

CAMP 381/2021

[2022] HKCA 1766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 381 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 646 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 25 February 2022, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ P Li dated 13 January 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of DHCJ KW Lung in HCAL 2393/2018, dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office which dismissed 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 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 1 March 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated that he wished “to go to the Court of Final Appeal”, without setting out any grounds.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 19 April 2022, the applicant merely restated the dangers he may face should he be refouled to India.

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 advanced 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.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 1 March 2022 is dismissed.