|
CACV 635/2020
[2022] HKCA 69
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 635 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 584/2020)
____________________
| RE: |
HUSSAIN WAJID |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and K Yeung J in Court
Date of Judgment: 11 January 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 17 August 2021, this court (Barma JA and K Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 26 November 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his request for the making of a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection.
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 19 August 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 to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my case. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because there not real matter in actual. Because there were totally [rely] on news and post on web which is not in real life, because its toward my life in my home land in Pakistan. I do not go back to Pakistan because my life in danger in my home country in Pakistan.”
4. The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 31 August 2021, while the Director of Immigration indicated that he would take a neutral stance in this application. In the written submissions, the applicant alleged that:
(1) this court had erred in concluding that the court below had not failed to appreciate the significance of his non-refoulement claim; and
(2) the lack of assistance provided to him (in particular a lack of “language assistance” and that he was “unrepresented”) at the hearing of the appeal amounted to procedural unfairness and/or failure by this court to adhere to a high standard of fairness.
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. The applicant identified a number of alleged errors in our judgment but he did not provide particulars of any of them. The Notice of Motion and submissions do not engage the reasons for dismissing the appeal given in [12] and [13] of our judgment. We also note that at the hearing of the appeal, the applicant had in fact been assisted by an interpreter. None of the grounds raised is 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 19 August 2021 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal
|
(K YEUNG)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|