|
CACV 472/2020
[2021] HKCA 1328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 472 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 628/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SHAHID MOHAMMED |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J 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 7 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 31 August 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 20 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“…with due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I couldn’t accept the decision which was incorrect informations which are used by the Court to make the decision. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointment me about my life security. Decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. The Judges did not verify all the relevant matters which I gave to the court in previous time. This decision was unfair and reflected my claim. The other grounds are written on Annex-A.”
4. In Annex-A attached to the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that:
(1) the judges “reviewed the matter lightly” and failed to meet the high standard of fairness;
(2) the judges failed to apply the principle of irrationality to the decisions by the Board and the Director;
(3) the judges’ decision was unreasonable; and
(4) the judges “may not analyzed the applicant’s claim properly in his home country”.
5. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 31 May 2021. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also identified a number of alleged errors in the decision by the Board and the Director. He asked for time for him to submit further documents.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The applicant identified a number of alleged errors in our judgment but he did not provide sufficient particulars of any of them. They also do not engage with the reasons for dismissing the appeal given in [14] – [16] of our judgment. None of those grounds is therefore reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
9. As for the grounds based on the alleged errors in the Board’s Decision, they are not related to any supposed error in our judgment and are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2021 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(ST POON)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|