|
CACV 642/2020
[2021] HKCA 1943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 642 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 811 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
NAEEM MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Yuen, G Lam JJA and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
24 December 2021 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (Yuen and G Lam JJA and Ng J) handed down judgment on 6 July 2021 ([2021] HKCA 956) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 4 December 2020 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).
2. On 15 December 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision. As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 6 July 2021, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. On 12 July 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:
“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.
2. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.
3. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.
4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”
4. Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 July 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 26 July 2021 but he failed to do so. As directed by the Registrar, he will be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by us based on the available materials.
5. The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. As it is appropriate to do so, we proceeded to determine this application on paper.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that 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.
7. Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
8. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 July 2021 is dismissed.
| (Maria Yuen)
|
(Godfrey Lam)
|
(Peter Ng)
|
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|