Re Nadeem Irfan

CACV 592/2021

[2022] HKCA 1369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 507 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment: 16 September 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 13 June 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 839) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 20 December 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 20 June 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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, 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 Notice of Motion states that: (i) there are some errors of law in the decision; (ii) the decision maker relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim. Actual life situation is different from what was stated in the COI; (iii) the decision makers ignored overwhelming evidence of violence committed towards the minorities; and (iv) the decision betrays a biased and formulaic approach indicating that there has been any fair assessment of the danger to the applicant’s life and the decision is clearly unreasonable. 

7.The applicant has not identified any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, had been identified.  Further, for the reasons we gave in [13] and [14] of our judgment, the matters raised in the Notice of Motion are unarguable.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.