|
CACV 378/2019
[2021] HKCA 1445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 378 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 45/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
IMRAN MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 4 October 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 7 May 2021, this court (Yeung, Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 2 August 2019 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 decisions 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 filed on 20 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“I would like to inform the [court] that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The Officer and [court] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”
4. In the affirmation filed on 20 May 2021, the applicant deposed that:
“…The Decisions are unlawful. I don’t want to go back to my home country, because my life is in danger in the Pakistan. The decisions failed to take into account the dangers and the risk of my life…”
5. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 3 June 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He submitted that he had been aggrieved by the decisions by the Court, Board and the Director but he did not explain why that was the case.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, 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 the documents filed.
7. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
8. Neither the Notice of Motion, affirmation nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2021 is dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|