IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

CACV 171/2020

[2021] HKCA 518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 171 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 762 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 20 November 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 10 November 2020 (“the Judgment”). In the Judgment, this Court (Au JA and S T Poon J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 4 June 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

“Respected sir/madam, its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full to you.” [sic]

5.  In his skeleton submissions of 2 December 2020 filed pursuant to the Court’s directions, the applicant merely repeated his personal background and his claim.  He did not advance any grounds against the Judgment.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is hopelessly without merit.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in the Judgment. 

7.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.  The statutory requirements under section 22 are plainly not met.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.