Re Ali Sikandar

CACV 394/2019

[2020] HKCA 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2592 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

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 23 April 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 16 August 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 9 June 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant’s notice of motion stated that his life is still in danger. He complained that that there was error in law in the decision and the decision maker relied on country of origin information to his disfavour. He complained that there was overwhelming evidence to support his case. Attached to the notice of motion is a four-page document in which he referred to the factual background and chronology and statements of legal principles in this area.

1.5The applicant provided a supporting affirmation. He stated that he was late for certain applications to the Court because he was sick. He exhibited certain evidence of being sick.

1.6The applicant also provided a written submission. In it are references to his effort to apply for legal aid, factual and procedural backgrounds of what had happened in the previous hearings and citation of legal authorities that are used in non-refoulement cases.

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, supporting affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 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 documents.

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 9 June 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person