RE MEHMOOD AAMIR

CACV 136/2025, [2025] HKCA 1093

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 136 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2354 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 18 September 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 12 September 2025 (“the Judgment”)  ([2025] HKCA 823).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 11 March 2025, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 717).

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.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicants stated:

“With due respect and humbly submissions I beg to you that I do not agree to the decision of the Court of Appeal and of the Court of First Instance. These all decision was unfair and it make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is unsafe. My enemies are still looking for me and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Given his failure to point to any error in the Judgment with specific particulars, his intended appeal is a nonstarter and must fail.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  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.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2025 is dismissed.