|
CACV 217/2020
[2021] HKCA 118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 217 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1922 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
AHMED AFTAB |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma JA and G Lam J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 5 January 2021
Date of Decision: 28 January 2021
_________________
D E C I S I O N
_________________
Hon G Lam J (giving the Decision of the Court):
1. On 23 December 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 15 December 2020.[1] In that judgment, this Court (Lam VP and G Lam J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 16 June 2020 which dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.
3. In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant stated that there was some incorrect information used by this Court in its decision, that the decision maker just relied on hearsay, that the Court did not verify all the matters previously raised by the applicant, and that the decision was unfair. In an annex to the Notice of Motion, the applicant also repeated certain arguments taken from his written submissions lodged on 21 October 2020 for the substantive appeal in this Court.
4. Pursuant to the Registrar’s directions of 23 December 2020, the applicant lodged his written submissions in support his Notice of Motion on 5 January 2021. Paragraphs 1 to 10 of those submissions are virtually the same as his previous written submissions for the appeal to this Court. The only additional point raised is that the applicant is a Muslim and that Muslims in India are always tortured by the Hindus. The applicant however did not provide any particulars in support of this additional argument, which in any event has nothing to do with the facts that formed the basis of his claim for non‑refoulement protection.
5. The applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal or any discernible ground for impugning our decision. The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions fail to identify any question of great general or public importance or show any reason why the appeal ought otherwise to be submitted to the CFA for determination.
6. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and the Applicant’s Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(MH Lam)
Vice President |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The Applicant, unpresented, acting in person
|