LATIF MASOOD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

CACV 44/2019

[2019] HKCA 685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 44 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 280 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 7 May 2019 ([2019] HKCA 501), the Court of Appeal (Poon JA and Lisa Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 25 January 2019 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion filed on 9 May 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 14 May 2019, the applicant should lodge with the court his written submissions in support of the notice of motion on or before 23 May 2019.  The applicant failed to lodge his written submissions as directed.  

4.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong 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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion gives rise to any question of great general or public importance or is one that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave under the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

6.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.