Zakir Hossain v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 146/2018

[2018] HKCA 735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 447 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions: 26 September 2018

Date of Decision: 22 October 2018

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1.On 22 August 2018 this Court handed down the judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 30 April 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) dismissing his appeal from two decisions of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) who had rejected his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant applies, by a notice of motion dated 27 August 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that :

‘ - The claims that the Judgment has made stated there is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

-   On the strength of the grounds has not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer in due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

-   The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

-   Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.’

3.The applicant’s supporting affirmation dated 27 August 2018 stated that :

‘ …I am totally disagree with the Judgment at the Court of Appeal which is attached…The Judgment is unfair and unreasonable to me. I do not agree with the Judgment dated 22/8/2018…’

4.In his written submission dated 26 September 2018, pages 1 to 15 bear the almost identical contents as his affirmation filed in support of his appeal against DHCJ Woodcock’s decision of 30 April 2018.  Pages 16 to 19 of the written submission contain citation of various authorities, without any explanation on how these cases would apply to his case.  

5.We will now deal with the application on paper.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) states the following :

‘ 22. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court (Court of Final Appeal)-…

(b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, 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 for decision…’  (emphasis added)

7.The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

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

9.For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person