Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Chaudhary Muhammad Mobeen

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date31 January 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 90
Year2019
Judgement NumberCAMP73/2018
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CAMP73A/2018 RE CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD MOBEEN

CAMP 73/2018

[2019] HKCA 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 73 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 737/2017)

-----------------------------------

RE: CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD MOBEEN @ CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD MOBEEN Applicant

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Chu, Barma and McWalters JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 31 January 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1. On 5 October 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 9 May 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2. The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 dated 18 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion that:

“1. Learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on the 5th October 2018 refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle on procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.”

4. Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 22 October 2018, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT