|
CACV 337/2020
[2021] HKCA 1337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 337 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2433/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
MOHAMMED TAJ |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 24 September 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 28 July 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“My life is still in danger my home country, I would be at risk and harm returned to India. I would like to inform the [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 favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The officer and courts perfect 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 dangerous of my life and clearly not reasonable.”
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 10 June 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return and identified a number of alleged errors in the decisions by the judge and the Board.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
6. The matters stated by the applicant 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
7. All of the grounds advanced by the applicant are in very broad terms and lack particulars. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment other than to allege without any particulars that we failed to consider the lawfulness or fairness of the decisions made. They raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2021 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|