|
CACV 575/2020
[2021] HKCA 1307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 575 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1389 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SHAH SYED QASID HUSSAIN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Yuen, G Lam JJA and Ng J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 23 August 2021
Date of Judgment: 14 September 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 9 August 2021 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) from our judgment dated 6 July 2021,[1] in which we affirmed the decision below not to grant leave for judicial review in relation to the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.
2. In accordance with Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.
3. The background and the reasons for our decision are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:
“ I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and court 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. In his affirmation dated 9 August 2021, the applicant stated that the decision of this court was “unlawful” and that the decision failed to take into account the dangers to his life.
6. In his written submissions dated 23 August 2021, the applicant stated that there is danger to his life in Pakistan and that he came to Hong Kong to save his life. He submitted that there was violation of laws by the Director of Immigration because there was a risk of torture, a risk of persecution and a risk of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. He asked the court to grant him leave so that he could get legal assistance from the Legal Aid Department.
7. By virtue of section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), leave to appeal to the CFA is only granted if there is a question involved in the proposed appeal which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.
8. Having considered the written materials, we are satisfied that no such question of great general or public importance arises and none has been identified the applicant. We are unable to see any reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal. There are no reasons to give leave on the “or otherwise” limb of section 22(1)(b).
9. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
Written Submissions by the Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|