|
CACV 338/2021
[2021] HKCA 1980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 338 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1061 OF 2018)
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
HOQUE AHIDUL |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
7 December 2021 |
| Date of Judgment: |
29 December 2021 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 22 June 2012 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 4 June 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 23 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his claim that his life is in danger should he return to his home country in Bangladesh, and complains that there is “some error of law” in the decision, that the decision-maker just relied on COI and facts which were in favour of rejecting his non-refoulement claim, and that the decision adopts a “bias and formula” approach which is unlikely to fairly assess his situation and is unreasonable. He elaborates on these points in his written submissions dated 7 December 2021.
3. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.
4. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Thomas Au) |
(Anderson Chow) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person
|