RE SHAH ALAM MIAH

CACV 141/2022

[2022] HKCA 1385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 252 of 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Barnes J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.   By a judgment (Judgment) [1]handed down on 21 July 2022 we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) made on 4 April 2022[2] refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 14 January 2019. The background and reasons for our decision were fully set out in the Judgment and we will not repeat them here.

2.  The applicant, who is acting in person, filed a Notice of Motion date 27 July 2022 for leave to appeal against our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed, among other things, that there were errors in law in the decision affecting him, and that the Courts have wrongly relied on COL information and rejected his claim though there were facts favourable to him. The applicant also claimed that the Courts ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities groups.

4.  In his written submission, the applicant cited general legal principles and quoted passages from case authorities without any explanations as to how they specifically advance his case.

5.  We have read the Notice of Motion and the written submission filed in support. As provided in paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction 2.1, such leave applications are dealt with and determined on paper without an oral hearing. We see no reason why this application cannot be disposed of on paper without a hearing.

Discussion

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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 matters stated in the Notice of Motion and submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.