|
CACV 505/2024, [2025] HKCA 991
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 505 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1039 OF 2022)
_______________
| RE: |
ISHTIAQ MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
_______________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
13 November 2025 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 5 June 2025, this court (Chow JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 13 November 2024 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 (“the Director”) 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 13 June 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, he alleges generally that there is some error in the decisions of the authorities and repeats his contention raised in the appeal that he does not consider his case was determined fairly. He complains that the authorities rejected his claim by totally relying on “some web news which [is] officially not recognised”.
4. The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 27 June 2025. In the written submissions, he essentially repeated his submissions made in the appeal, complaining about unfairness in the determination of his case by the Director and the Board, and a lack of legal and language assistance to him.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. His complaints of unfairness and a lack of legal and language assistance have been dealt with at paragraph 12 of our judgment dated 5 June 2025. The other complaints, mainly directed at the Board, are general assertions without particulars.
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 13 June 2025 is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Yvonne Cheng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The applicant acting in person
|