Re Aqeel Ahmed Alias Choudhry Aqeel Ahmed
Read the full judgment text of CACV 192/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 April 2021.
1. On 16 April 2020, this court (Cheung JA, Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 12 April 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 6 cases
|
CACV 192/2019 [2021] HKCA 429 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 192 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1077/2017) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 16 April 2020, this court (Cheung JA, Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 12 April 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions 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 13 May 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 23 June 2020. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion. He further contended that:
5.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. 6.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. 7.We note that, hitherto, the applicant has not raised any complaint related to the re-screening of his claims and state protection in his notice of appeal filed on 23 April 2019. As we have explained before, it is not the practice of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in the hearing before it;[2] nor generally is it the practice of the Court of Final Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court of Appeal.[3] Further and in any event, these grounds lack particulars and are therefore bound to fail. 8.As for the remaining ground based on the over reliance on the Director’s decision, this ground also lacks particulars and we are of the view that it is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 13 May 2020 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person [1] See [2020] HKCA 197 [2] See Ageas Insurance Co (Asia) Ltd v Lam Hau Wah Inneo, CACV 65/2014, unreported, 19 May 2015, at [7] to [9]; and The Law Society of Hong Kong v A Solicitor, CACV 78/2014, unreported, 10 July 2015, at [4] to [7]. [3] See Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates Ltd (2002) 5 HKCFAR 356 at [39]. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 192/2019