RE IQBAL MUHAMMAD AZHAR

CAMP 388/2021

[2022] HKCA 967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 388 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2773 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 25 February 2022, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 27 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 3 May 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that he “wish the Court of Final Appeal will consider my leave to apply for judicial review”, without providing any particulars or basis, while he simply acknowledged the delay of the present application in his supporting affirmation.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 17 May 2022, the applicant repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan, as well as claiming that he did not receive any letters from the court.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The applicant claimed that he did not receive any letters from the court (assuming he meant the letter enclosing a copy of this court’s judgment)  but he did not explain why that was the case.  He also did not explain when and how he eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

7.  In any event, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 3 May 2022 is dismissed.