RE MEHMOOD MUHAMMAD NAEEM SHAHID

CAMP 586/2021

[2022] HKCA 843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 586 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1997 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 April 2022, this court (Chu JA 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 16 December 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s order dated 9 January 2019, which, upon the applicant’s own application, granted leave to the applicant to withdraw his intended application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board as well as that of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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 on 28 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant repeated in his supporting affirmation the dangers he apparently faced upon his return to Pakistan.

4.  In his written submissions lodged in 12 May 2022, the applicant again set out the background facts of his claim, as well as the procedural history of his case.

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.  We are of the view that 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.

7.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore 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).

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 28 April 2022 is dismissed.