Re Seth Nizam

CACV 257/2021

[2021] HKCA 1739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 257 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1017 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 8 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“the CFA”)  against this Court’s (G Lam JA and Coleman J)  judgment of 7 October 2021 (“the Judgment”)  [2021] HKCA 1448. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 11 May 2021, refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 11 October 2021, the applicant was directed to lodge 2 sets of written submissions on or before 22 October 2021 pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1 or he would be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.  The applicant had not lodged any written submissions by the deadline.

3.After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

5.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

1.  There is some error in law in my decision.  The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

2.  The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3.  Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information.  Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

4.  The Judge did not apply the law properly. [sic]

6.The Notice of Motion contains only general assertions of errors of law, failure to “apply the principle of irrationality” and some accusations related to the application of country of origin information.  No details or particulars were provided to substantiate those “grounds”.  No references were made to the Judgment.  We are unable to identify any viable grounds of appeal when examining the Judgment in the light of the “grounds” put forward in the Notice of Motion.

7.Having considered the materials available, we fail to see any questions of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the CFA, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any other reason why the applicant should, for some other reasons, be allowed to appeal to the CFA.

8.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.

The applicant acting in person