Re Drammeh Muhammed

CACV 307/2020

[2021] HKCA 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1846 OF 2018)

________________________________

________________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 13 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 668), this Court (Yeung VP and Pang JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 14 July 2020 in HCAL 1846/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 6 August 2018 in which the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) given on 23 June 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 13 May 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He did not provide any ground of appeal save for saying that “I want to challenge the decision”.

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 17 May 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 26 May 2021.   

4.In his written submissions, he repeated the background of his case.  He further stated that it was impossible for him to go back to Gambia as the Gambian police would not help him.  As there is no way to return to his home country and since the Director, the Board and the court had refused his claim, he would like to make a “humanitarian application” to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.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 at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

7.The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions did not pinpoint any error or raise any discernible grounds to disturb our judgment and his appeal is bound to fail.   Further, his case was dismissed by the Board on the issue of credibility and it was further found that he came to Hong Kong for economic reason rather than seeking non-refoulement protection.  It was perfectly open for the Board to reach its findings and conclusion and we see no basis to intervene.  In our judgment, the applicant’s case has no merit at all. 

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

9.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.