RE HUSSAIN SHABBIR

CAMP 54/2022

[2022] HKCA 1727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 54 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2635 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 19 September 2022, 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 8 September 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 1313). 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 28 April 2021, by which the Deputy Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 1090).

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 AND TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. I WAS NOT [SATISFIED] SO I CAME TO THE HIGH COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY APPLY. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 October 2022.  In those submissions, he merely repeated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim.  He claimed that the Board made many mistakes in its decision and that the High Court and Court of Appeal did not like his arguments.  He further claimed that he did not get justice and that all his friends are facing the same problem.

6.  That said, in our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  He also did not specify what are the alleged mistakes made by the Board.  More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with any particulars.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

7.  Further, he failed to condescend upon particulars or provide any evidence in support as to how “all his friends are facing the same problem” or how his case is in any way relevant to his friends’ cases.  His bare allegation that he did not “get justice” was also without any basis.  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly lacks merit.

8.  In any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant 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.

10.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 19 September 2022 is dismissed.