Re Shaikh Shajada

CACV 404/2020

[2021] HKCA 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 404 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1937/2018)

________________________

________________________

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

Date of Written Submissions:  11 May 2021

Date of Judgment:  5 July 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 30 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 19 April 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 11 August 2020.

2.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“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.

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

“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court 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 cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming 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.” [sic]

4.The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 11 May 2021.  Those submissions mostly consist of general statements of law quoted from case law, without identifying how they specifically relate to or apply in this case. 

5.The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 19 April 2021 for dismissing his appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in this Court’s judgment or the judgment of the court below.

6.There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.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