RE CEESAY AHMAD

CAMP 594/2021

[2022] HKCA 1461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 594 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1622 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.  On 11 April 2022, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 499) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 20 May 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 14 April 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not lodge any written submission despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeal.  

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 at [6].  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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 Notice of Motion did not set out any grounds in support of the application.  The applicant simply stated that he wishes to challenge our judgment and appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

7.  In our view, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal is devoid of merits and we dismiss the Notice of Motion accordingly.