Re Syed Sajjad Ahmed Alias Sajjad Gilani

CACV 420/2022, [2024] HKCA 667

On Appeal From[2022] HKCFI 3242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2016 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 25 May 2023, this Court (Cheung and G Lam JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 20 October 2022 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 2 June 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals also dated 2 June 2023, the applicant was to lodge and serve on or before 16 June 2023 written submissions failing which he will be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by this Court based on the available materials. The applicant has not lodged or served written submission by the stipulated deadline.

5.Having considered the applicant’s 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.

6.The applicant stated in his notice of motion in summary the following points :

1) The Judges were wrong for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness to the Director’s decision. The Director was required to give reasons justifying its decision;

2) The Judges were wrong for not applying the principle of irrationality to the Director’s decision;

3) There is error of law in the applicant’s decision. The decision maker relied on the Country of Origin Information which was in favour of rejecting the applicant’s claim;

4) Actual life situation is different. Courts prefer to ignore overwhelming evidence of violence to the minority and instead had searched for ‘unrealistic silver lining’;

5) The Judge did not apply the law properly and there was procedural unfairness to the case; and

6) The applicant’s life is in danger in his home country. The applicant would be killed if he returns.

II. Our view

7.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

8.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III. Disposition

10.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 2 June 2023 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person