Re Mohammed Naveed

CACV 81/2018

[2018] HKCA 655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 604 of 2017)

________________________________

________________________________

Before: Hon Chu, Barma and Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  16 October 2018

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 August 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Lok J given on 15 March 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 7 September 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. On 20 September 2018, the applicant also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

4.The Notice of Motion stated that there were errors in law in the decision of his case.  The applicant complained that the decision maker only relied on information but the actual situation was different, and the decision maker ignored overwhelming evidence of violence committed against the minorities.   

5.In the written submission, the applicant gave an account of his claim for non-refoulement protection.  He asked the court to understand his situation and to help him out.  

6.The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are case-specific and relate only to the personal circumstances of the applicant.  They do not involve any question of great, general or public importance.  Further, the applicant’s case had been considered by the Director and the Board.  We had in our judgment pointed out that there was no legal basis for the court to disturb their conclusions on the merits of the applicant’s claim.

7.There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

8.In the circumstances, the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.