|
CACV 154/2019
[2020] HKCA 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 154 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 816 OF 2018)
_____________________
BETWEEN
| |
MOHAMMAD MUKHTAR |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA, G Lam and S T Poon JJ in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 3 September 2019
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2020
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 1 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 818) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Josiah Lam given on 18 March 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
2. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 20 August 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 3 September 2019.
3. Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 August 2019, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.
4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [COI] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [COI] 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.” (sic)
5. The written submissions mainly repeated the skeleton submissions filed on 4 June 2019 in support of the applicant’s appeal to this court. The grounds and arguments of the applicant had already been dealt with by this court in paragraphs 12 to 14 of our judgment.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.
8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
10. By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 20 August 2019 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person.
|