|
CACV 386/2020
[2021] HKCA 1308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 386 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1923 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
BAIG MIRZA NOMAN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Cheung, G Lam JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 31 May 2021
Date of Judgment: 15 September 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 29 April 2021, this Court (Cheung, G Lam JJA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 7 August 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.[1]
2. The facts and issues of the appeal as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 17 May 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that there was some error in the decision, without specifically stating what the alleged error was. He also made broad and vague complaints including that the decision maker had relied on country of origin information that were against him, that the court ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that there had been no fair assessment of his dangerous situation. None of these grounds is supported with any particulars.
4. The applicant’s supporting affirmation simply attached copies of previous court documents.
5. In the applicant’s written submissions, he first recited certain background facts of his case and stated that he came to Hong Kong only because his life was in danger. He then stated various non‑refoulement legal principles and relevant statutory provisions without detailing how they related to the particular circumstances of his case.
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 will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
7. In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Nor is there any such question apparent from the materials he has submitted.
8. We do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 17 May 2021 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|