|
CACV 259/2022
[2023] HKCA 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 259 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1106 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
IQBAL MUDASSAR |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Chow JA and K Yeung J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 20 December 2022
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2023
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 23 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 9 April 2019.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 December 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:
“1. The Learned Judge were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of irrational to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on dated 23 June 2022.
2. The learned Judge were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of irrational to the decision of the Director hereby the required to give reason justifying the Decision”.
3. On 6 December 2022, the Applicant filed an affirmation. Therein, he asserts that “there is a good ground of appeal” and that “the merits of this ground of appeal constitute [sic] sufficient reason justification for the Court to exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal”. He has however failed to explain what that alleged ground is.
4. In his written submissions of 20 December 2022, the Applicant only recites certain authorities and makes some generic and non-specific submissions on the general legal principles applicable to non-refoulement claims. He has failed to deal with the facts, and has failed to identify any error or question of law.
5. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.
6. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion or written submissions. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
7. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Anderson Chow) |
(Keith Yeung) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person.
|