Re William Saleem Alias Sahael Victor Alias Sohail Victor Alias Marik William Alias Sam William

CAMP 145/2021

[2021] HKCA 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 145 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 673 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Decision : 30 December 2021

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 21 September 2021, this Court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1364) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 9 September 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 28 September 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 11 October 2021.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)(Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion may be summarized as follows :

1)  There is error in the decision.  The decision maker just relied on the Country of Origin information (‘COI’) which favours the rejection of the applicant’s claim.  The actual situation is different from the COI.

2)  The immigration officer and the High Court ignored the evidence of violence towards the minorities.  The decision betrayed a biased and formula approach unlikely to fairly assess the danger of the applicant’s life and is clearly calculated to reject his claim.

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated general non‑refoulement legal principle and statutory authority without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person