RE ATIF IKHLAQ

CAMP 9/2023, [2024] HKCA 730

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 9 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 426 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

1.  On 20 October 2023, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA)  handed down judgment ([2023] HKCA 1186)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of High Court Judge Campbell Moffat given on 29 August 2022 refusing his application to extend time for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 10 November 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged written submission within time.

3.  On 14 May 2023, the Appeal’s Registry received a request from the applicant to dismiss his appeal.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.

5.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

6.  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.

7.  The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion is as follows :

‘ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

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

9.  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.

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.

12.  We would also according to the applicant’s request for dismissal of appeal dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion.