Re Amin Muhammad

CACV 439/2020

[2021] HKCA 692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 439 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2156/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Yau and S T Poon JJ in Court

Date of Written Submission:  19 April 2021

Date of Judgment:  24 May 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yau J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 29 March 2021 (“the Judgment”), this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 24 August 2020, refusing his leave to apply for judicial review.  The subject-matter of the intended judicial review is the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board given on 3 September 2018, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 September 2017 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. 

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment and the Court is not going to repeat them here. 

3.On 8 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision. 

4.In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“… There is some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claims. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned in COI information. Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities Searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal represented could you please provide me and consider my real situation and save my life’s as a human being.” [sic]

5.The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 19 April 2021.  Those submissions comprise in large part general statements of law quoted from decided cases, without identifying how they specifically relate to or apply in this case and are identical to his arguments in the appeal which this Court had already addressed and rejected in the Judgment. 

6.In those submissions the Applicant also raised for the first time new grounds that had not been raised in his application for leave to apply for judicial review and which are irrelevant to his application.  For example, he complained that the court had failed to call for and consider medical and psychological reports of the abuses he had suffered as a result of domestic violence and sexual assault which clearly have no connection at all with the grounds of his torture claim.  This Court will not entertain any grounds for judicial review which are irrelevant or could and should have been but had not been raised in the Form 86 or supporting affirmations.

7.The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the Judgment dismissing his appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing the Judgment. 

8.We do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. 

9.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly. 

The Applicant acting in person