Shaik Abdul Monir v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of CACV 24/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 July 2022.
1. On 17 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 20 October 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the Notice of Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 June 2021.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 24/2022 [2022] HKCA 859 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 24 OF 2022 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1256 OF 2021) ________________________
_____________________ Before: Hon Chow JA and Wong J in Court Date of Judgment: 15 July 2022 _____________________ J U D G M E N T _____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 17 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 20 October 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the Notice of Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 June 2021. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 25 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.The Applicant has not filed any submissions in support of the application despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 25 May 2022. 4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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. 5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 24/2022