RE ZUBAIR MUHAMMAD

CAMP 366/2022, [2024] HKCA 1177

On an intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 366 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 63 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 25 March 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 (“the Board”)  dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his 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 11 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated, inter alia, that there was “some error” in the decision(s)  made in the processing of his claim, and that his life would be in danger should he be refouled.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged submissions which were 20 pages in total (exceeding the 10-page limit).  On this occasion, this court is prepared to consider those submissions, which merely repeats his complaints against the Board and recites the established legal principles applicable to the processing of non-refoulement claims.

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 11 April 2023 is dismissed.