|
CACV 94/2022
[2022] HKCA 1268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 94 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 292 OF 2019)
____________
| RE: |
HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD SAJID |
Applicant |
____________
Before: Hon G Lam JA and Barnes J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 25 July 2022
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 23 June 2022.[2]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 11 July 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicant stated in that document that there was some error of law in the decision, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information rejecting his claim, that actual situation in this country was different, and that the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach and did not fairly assess the danger to his life.
3. On 25 July 2022, the applicant lodged written submissions for the present application. Those submissions, however, merely set out certain general principles or quoted passages from cases or statutes, without identifying any specific grounds of appeal or question arising in the intended appeal.
4. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
5. We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Judianna Barnes)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance
|
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|