|
CACV 322/2020
[2021] HKCA 936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2608 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
TALLAT MEHMOOD |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 24 May 2021
Date of Judgment: 5 July 2021
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1. By a judgment dated 16 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 245), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 29 July 2020 in HCAL 2608/2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 28 March 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. By a notice of motion dated 12 April 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:
“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board cancel my claim as they could not find any problem in my country. One (sic) of the other hand the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not grant my leave to appeal for judicial review. But I have no way to return home, so I want to go to the Court to Final Appeal for justice.”
3. Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 April 2021, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 26 April 2021. However, he only lodge the same on 24 May 2021 and the delay is substantial. In his submissions, the applicant did not advance any grounds of appeal against our judgment. He merely repeated his case as submitted before the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) and complained that his story was not believed by the Director, the Board and the court and thus, he wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice.
4. The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing. As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.
5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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. Here, the applicant failed to put forward any ground of appeal or to pinpoint any error of law in our judgment and his appeal is bound to fail. We found no merit in the applicant’s case.
7. For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 16 March 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order. None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or the written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.
8. Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.
| (W Yeung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Derek Pang) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|