|
CACV 562/2020
[2021] HKCA 1875
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 562 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 277 OF 2018)
__________________________
| RE: |
TABAROK ULLAH |
Applicant |
__________________________
Before: Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 15 December 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (Yuen and Chow JJA) handed down judgment on 20 September 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1355) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 23 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).
2. On 19 October 2020, the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision. As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 20 September 2021, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The facts and issues in the appeal 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 5 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:
“The Director of Immigration and Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my non-refoulement claim for protection. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. Total process I do not satisfy. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
4. On 5 October 2021 the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to lodge his written submissions on or before 19 October 2021. He failed to do so on that date or at all.
5. The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. As it is appropriate to do so, we proceed to determine this application on paper.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.
7. The applicant failed in his Notice of Motion to point out any error of law or raise any discernible ground to reverse our judgment. Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
8. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 5 October 2021 is dismissed.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|