Re Muhammad Umair

CACV 368/2024, [2025] HKCA 528

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 2257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2024

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 204 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 8 April 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 308)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 12 September 2024 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 14 April 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also lodged a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the 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, 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 stated that (i)  there is some error of law in the decision; (ii)  the decision maker only relied on country-of-origin information (COI)  and facts that favour the rejection of the claim; (iii)  the situation was different from what was mentioned in the COI; (iv)  evidence of violence towards minorities has been ignored; (v)  and the decision was biased, formulaic, unfair and unreasonable.   

7.The written submission argued that the decision has a significant impact on the applicant’s claim and high standards of fairness should be applied, and quoted extensively the passages on standards of fairness in Security for Security v Sakthevel Prabaker [2005] 1 HKLRD 289 at [43]-[45].

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds of appeal for the following reasons:  

(1)  What was put forward by the applicant relate solely to the circumstances and facts of the applicant’s claim.  No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, has been identified. 

(2)  The applicant’s grounds and arguments do not engage the reasons for dismissing his appeal: see [16] of our judgment.  They do not point to any error in our judgment.

9.We also do not 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, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.