RE ABDUL SHAKOOR

CAMP 465/2021

[2022] HKCA 1440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 465 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 484 OF 2019)

__________________

__________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

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

1.  On 29 April 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 600) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 28 January 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 12 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 25 May 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 in our decision. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) 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 grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion is as follows :

‘ THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT I WISH THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL WILL CONSIDER MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.’

7.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he made bare allegations that it is life threatening in his home country and that he wished to stay in Hong Kong. He stated that the decision makers did not believe him. He stated that all asylum seekers face the same problem.

8.  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, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.