Re Ali Zulfiqar

CACV 343/2018

[2019] HKCA 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 343 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 842/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 27 November 2018, this court (Barma JA and L Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 20 July 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 the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“The Judges did not address the issues in the skeleton submission dated 22 October 2018 and I therefore verily believe that the Judges have not considered my appeal thoroughly.”

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 13 December 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.  He also submitted that the high standard of fairness had not been followed throughout his case and that his case should be remitted to the Director of Immigration for re-consideration of BOR2 risk.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of his Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submission.  At [15] of our judgment, we observed that the grounds raised by the applicantin the skeleton submissions were not raised in the court below and were raised well outside the time limit.  We went on to give reasons why these grounds had no merit.

7.The applicant also complained of procedural unfairness and lack of high standard of fairness.  These grounds lack particulars and are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person