RE ATEEQ PASHA ABDUL GAFFAR

CAMP 209/2019

[2020] HKCA 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 209 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 31 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 22 January 2020, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 24 May 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 24 January 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also put in a written submission to support his application.

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 judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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 notice of motion only stated that the applicant wanted to challenge this Court’s decision because it was unreasonable.    

7.  In the written submission, the applicant reiterated that he was at risk of being assassinated by his enemy, Ramesh, and his followers, and also persecuted by the Indian authority.  He claimed that he was no match for Ramesh who was powerful and influential.     

8.  We are of the view that the points and arguments advanced in the notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They relate only to the circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, given that the Board had rejected his claim that he had been threatened by Ramesh, and for the reasons set out in [14] to [16] of our judgment, the applicant’s assertion that his life would be in danger if he were refouled to India is untenable.  

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.