Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 586/2020

[2021] HKCA 1888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 586 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1393/2018)

-----------------------------------

RE:

AWAN TANVEER AHMED

Applicant

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 17 December 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 16 January 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision 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 25 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not satisfy with those judgment so I want to make final application to the Court of Final Appeal. I wish the Court of Final Appeal will grant my leave, because I am a oppressed man.”

4.The applicant lodged written submission in support of the application on 29 June 2021. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also submitted that the High Court and the Court of Appeal “did not give good result”.

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.The applicant only claimed that he was not satisfied with the result of our judgment but he did not explain why that was the case. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and he has therefore failed to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 25 May 2021 is dismissed.