RE MUHAMMAD TARIQ TAHIR

CACV 295/2022, [2024] HKCA 392

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 656 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 17 April 2023, this Court (Chu VP and Cheung JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 21 July 2022 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 are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 24 April 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion :

‘ Director of Immigration dismissed my nonrefoulement claim. Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board too dismissed. The High Court and the Court of Appeal did not grant my leave. I did not get justice. To get justice, I want to go to Court of Final Appeal.’

4.  In summary the applicant stated in her written submission the following :

1)  The applicant has life threat in his motherland.

2)  The Director, the Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal all dismissed the applicant’s claim.

3)  The applicant wishes to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

4)  The applicant will speak for the great interest of all asylum seekers.

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 submission 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) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submission. 

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 24 April 2023 is dismissed.