RE ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD

CAMP 268/2022, [2023] HKCA 869

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 268 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2050 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 9 June 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion with a supporting affirmation to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 8 June 2023 (“the Judgment”)  ([2023] HKCA 714).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 4 April 2022, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 573).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

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

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS BOARD TOO DISMISSED. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GRANT MY LEAVE. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE. TO GET JUSTICE I WANT TO GO TO COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 June 2023.  In those submissions, he merely repeated the procedural history and factual basis of his non-refoulement claim and alleged that he “will talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker”.  It is noted that these are all general propositions and the applicant has failed to show specifically how they are relevant to his case.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  The intended grounds as raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations without specific particulars in support.  General assertions of their fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As such, nothing set out in the Notice of Motion or his written submissions can be considered as viable grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In any event, the applicant’s contentions are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, he has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and does not meet the requirements of section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.