|
CACV 76/2022
[2023] HKCA 258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 76 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1600 OF 2019)
-----------------------------------
| RE: |
SHAFIQ JUNAID |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
| Before: |
Hon Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
8 March 2023 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 23 June 2022, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 10 February 2022 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 29 June 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated, without providing any particulars or grounds, that he was “not totally satisfied” with this court’s decision and that he wished to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.
4. In his written submissions lodged on 13 July 2022, the applicant repeated the dangers which he would allegedly face upon his return to Pakistan, and that he did not “get justice”.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.
6. 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.
7. Neither the Notice of Motion 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.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 29 June 2022 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(GODFREY LAM)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|