RE SHAIKH SAJED

CAMP 470/2021

[2022] HKCA 1445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 470 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2306 OF 2018)

__________________

__________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.  On 26 January 2022, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 153) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 19 January 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 21 February 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged his written submission on 20 April 2022.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out at [6] in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion did not provide any grounds in support of the application save that the applicant simply stated that as the authorities have rejected his claim for non‑refoulement protection, he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he repeated similar submissions made previously before this Court and to the Court below, namely that his life is in danger if he is returned to India and that he did not receive documents from the Court. These are bare assertions and not proper grounds of appeal. We have also expressly dealt with these contentions at [14] and [15] of our judgment.

8.  In light of the above reasons, we are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal is devoid of merits and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.