Re Waris Muhammad

CACV 130/2023, [2024] HKCA 685

On Appeal From[2023] HKCFI 1073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 747 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 21 July 2023, this Court (Cheung JA and Anthony Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 26 April 2023 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 27 July 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some error in my decision maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal board. I do not think my case determined fairlly.’

4.The applicant stated in his written submission in summary the following points :

1)  Whilst interpretation service does not need to be made available at all times to a non-refoulement claimant, that does not mean that a litigant should be deprived of the basic right to understand contents of the process or judgment;

2)  No assistance was given to the applicant in relation to his BOR 2 risk claim and the authorities failed to acknowledge this;

3)  The lack of fairness in the non-refoulement process is appalling and the Court of Appeal should investigate, point out and correct the errors on the part of the decision makers; and

4)  The applicant believes that because he does not understand English he has been discriminated upon and put at a disadvantage.

II.  Our view

5.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.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions 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 and written submissions. 

7.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

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 27 July 2023 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person