|
CACV 277/2020
[2021] HKCA 205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 277 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1930 of 2018)
__________________________
| RE |
HUSSAIN SAYYED RASHID |
Applicant |
__________________________
Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Au JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2021
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:
1. On 14 January 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 16 July 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. On 25 January 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.
3. Having considered the notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.
4. The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.
5. 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 may be granted if 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.
6. The applicant stated in the notice of motion that he has problem in his country and cannot go back at this time because there is still danger for him. He asked to be allowed to stay here for longer time so that he can resolve his problem.
7. What the applicant put forward in the notice of motion does not provide viable ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, as pointed out in our judgment, in light of the Board’s rejection of his evidence and case, there is no credible evidence to support his non-refoulement claim.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it is futile to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion. Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|