RE MOHSIN KHAN

CAMP 84/2024, [2026] HKCA 1146

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 1198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 84 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1466 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 9 January 2025, this Court handed down the decision ([2025] HKCA 54)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 30 April 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non - refoulement claim. 

2.  On 13 May 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion with a supporting affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also lodged written submissions out of time on 10 July 2025. 

3.  On 9 September 2025, the Court received notice from the Immigration Department informing that the applicant has been removed from Hong Kong, and that there is a signed declaration from the applicant that he chooses not to provide correspondence address and understands that further update of these proceedings may not reach him.

2)  Our view

4.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

5.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.

6.  Section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5)  further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

7.  The applicant’s present application is out of time by over three months.  The applicant did not provide any reason for the delay in his notice of motion.  In his supporting affirmation, the applicant explained that he was detained by the Immigration Department for a year at the time and only came to know our judgment in March 2025.  He did not explain the circumstances when he came to know our judgment and what he had done afterwards.  This is not a satisfactory explanation, but in any event, we will consider the merits of this application.

8.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

9.  The notice of motion simply stated without particulars that the judges have not applied principle of procedural unfairness or irrationality, there was some error of law, and the judges have ignored the evidence.

10.  In his four-page written submission, the applicant referred to principles in authorities without identifying how these principles apply to his case.

11.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

12.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

13.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.