Re Musharaf Kazi

CACV 474/2019

[2020] HKCA 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 90 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before :  Hon Cheung, Yuen and Au JJA in Court

Date of Decision :  28 July 2020

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 20 January 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 27 September 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 22 January 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant stated in his notice of motion that ‘there is some error in law in my decision.  Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim.  Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information.  The Officer and cour[t]s prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.  The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

1.5The applicant provided written submissions which cited statues and legal authorities that are commonly used in non-refoulement cases without drawing any attention to how they relate to his case.

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  Ultimately the applicant failed to show why it was not an abuse to bring another leave application for judicial review when a previous application was already considered and dismissed.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 22 January 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person