RE ZULFIQAR KHAN

CAMP 113/2023, [2024] HKCA 808

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 113 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 420 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.  On 19 January 2024, this Court handed down decision ([2024] HKCA 62) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 16 January 2023 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 31 January 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 9 February 2024.

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 applicant stated the following in the notice of motion in summary :

1)  The applicant did not realize that failing to lodge written submissions would mean losing the chance for an oral hearing.  The applicant has no knowledge of judicial review and did not receive translation help from friends;

2)  The Judges were procedurally unfair.  The applicant requested for the help of legal advisor but was refused.  The applicant’s case was rejected by the Board; and

3)  The Board made a decision on the applicant’s case based on other applicants with the same reason.  The Pakistan army are killing civilians.

7.  The applicant’s written submission consists entirely of general statement of law, quotations from cases, bald assertions of procedural unfairness and reference to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance.

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.  All the matters contained in the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission are matters that are within the province of the Board.  They do not show how or where the Judge made any error of law or procedural unfairness.

9.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

10.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.