RE AHMED TANVEER

CAMP 141/2021

[2022] HKCA 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 141 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 581 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 29 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 (Chu and Au JJA) judgment of 22 November 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1731). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 17 August 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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.  Further, pursuant to section 24(2) of the HKCFAO, the application should be made within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Thus, the deadline for filing the Notice of Motion ended on 20 December 2021.  The applicant was therefore late for nine days with his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  As the applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal within time, the Court has a discretion to extend time under section 24(5) of the HKCFAO only if good and sufficient grounds are shown by the applicant.  In deciding whether there are such good grounds, the Court is entitled to take into account (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the chances of the appeal succeeding if an extension of time is granted; and (d) the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted: Begum Jahanara v Ian Candy, Esq & Another [2021] HKCA 83 at [4] and the authorities cited therein.

6.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and [court] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” (sic)

7.  In his affirmation in support filed on 29 December 2021, he stated:

“I am the applicant herein and I make this affirmation in support of my Notice of Motion in The Court of Appeal, against the decision of previous Courts, made on 22 November 2021, Torture Claims Appeal Board’s and Director of Immigration’s decisions. The Decisions are unlawful. I don’t want to go back to my home country Pakistan from Hong Kong. I have life danger in my Home’s country. My situation is very bad in the Pakistan. I appeal to Honourable Court, grant me leave. Please reconsider my Non-refoulement claim Protection in Hong Kong. I am living in Hong Kong, only for save my life. I left my family, children and properties, only for save my life. Please help me, this is matter of a human’s life. I attached here a Judgment.” (sic)

8.  Contrary to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 29 December 2021, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

9.  In our view, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or supporting affirmation has identified any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of his fear to return to his home country simply do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

10.  In any event, the applicant’s contentions are also fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

11.  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.

12.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 29 December 2021 is dismissed.