RE MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL

CAMP 360/2022, [2026] HKCA 714

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 360 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 522/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 26 April 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 To dated 28 April 2022 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 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 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 on 9 May 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended that this court did not “give [him] justice” and that he wished to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 23 May 2024, the applicant stated that his life was at risk in his home country and that his enemies are “very powerful and influential”.  He stated that he was dissatisfied with the judgment of this court as well as the decisions below, and that he wished to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal to “talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker[s]”.  

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 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.  

7.  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.

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 9 May 2024 is dismissed.