|
CACV 169/2021
[2022] HKCA 638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 169 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 728 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
ALI MUJAHID |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 14 September 2021, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 8 April 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
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 23 September 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“… there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”
4. In his written submissions lodged on 4 October 2021, the applicant referred to various authorities which established the trite principles of, inter alia, the requirement of a high standard of fairness in a decision-maker’s determination of a torture claim. However, there was no attempt by the applicant to elaborate on how these principles were misapplied or contravened in the processing of his non-refoulement claim.
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 23 September 2021 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|