RE MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ

CAMP 59/2021

[2022] HKCA 846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 59 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1131 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 28 June 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his 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 13 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant simply stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

4.  The applicant lodged his written submissions late, on 12 January 2022.  We have nonetheless proceeded to consider his submissions, which merely repeated the dangers he may face if refouled to Pakistan, as well as his wish for the case to proceed to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, 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.  We are of the view that 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 13 December 2021 is dismissed.