|
CACV 27 /2019
[2020] HKCA 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 27 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 648 OF 2018)
___________________
BETWEEN
| |
ISMAIL SHIAK DAWOOD |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
1st Putative Respondent |
| |
|
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative Respondent |
___________________
Before: Hon Cheung, Zervos JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Judgment: 8 January 2020
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
Background
1. By a judgment dated 10 May 2019 ([2019] HKCA 520) (“the Judgment”), this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Deputy Judge”) given on 9 January 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review is against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the applicant’s 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 the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.
Notice of Motion
3. By a Notice of Motion dated 16 May 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds [sic]:
“I would like to inform to court that there is some small error in law in my decision and I like to tell something to adjudicator regarding my case. its not an implausible features I am telling true about my situation. my loan problem is true and I am belong to Muslim religion and money tender belong to Hindu religion. and I like to say that not only Sri Lanka and Myanmar killing the minority even in India too many Muslim killed by BJP supporters for money and for other thing too. but the government never taken action against them beside few incident. my humble request from you give me the time to find the solution to protect my life and I also like to live with my family too”
5. On 20 May 2019, Master Au-Yeung directed the applicant to lodge with the court his written submission on or before 30 May 2019. The applicant lodged his written submission as directed. In his written submission, the applicant basically repeated what he set out in the Notice of Motion.
6. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.
Discussion
7. 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.
8. None of the grounds raised by the applicant identified any errors in the Judgment. These are not viable grounds.
9. Nor do we find any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb. For the reasons that we gave in the Judgment, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judgment. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance are not met.
Disposition
10. Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Kevin Zervos)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|