|
CAMP 105/2022, [2023] HKCA 1192
On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 105 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2028 OF 2018)
_________________________
| RE: |
MAJEED ABDUL |
Applicant |
_________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
9 August 2023 |
| Date of Judgment: |
20 October 2023 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 19 July 2023 ([2023] HKCA 874) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of DHCJ K. W. Lung given on 7 January 2022 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. On 27 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that there was a person who had been deported to his home country and upon arrival was killed by his enemies, and that his (the applicant’s) life will be saved if the Hong Kong Government allows him to stay in Hong Kong.
5. In his written submissions, he contended that high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker, and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.
6. As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.
7. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) 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.
8. The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without any basis. He has not identified any mistakes in the judgment of this court, or any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 27 July 2023 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal
|
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|