RE HASSAN MUHAMMAD

CACV 464/2024, [2025] HKCA 842

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2129 OF 2019)

__________________________________

__________________________________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 5 March 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and H. Au - Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 4 November 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  Decision maker just relied on Country of Origin information and previous facts which were in favour of rejecting the applicant’s claim;

2)  Courts ignored overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining;

3)  The decision does not fairly assess the danger of the applicant’s life; and

4)  The applicant does not have legal representation.

4.  The applicant’s written submissions stated that the Board’s decision was unreasonable or irrational and did not give any or sufficient reason for dismissing the appeal. He elaborated on his personal circumstances and a number of alleged errors of the Board.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’), 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.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions. The complaint regarding lack of legal representation which has appeared in both his notice of motion and written submission is misplaced, as the applicant had the benefit of legal representation before the Director[1]. Further, findings of fact are within the province of the Board. In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 11 March 2025 is dismissed.