Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 473/2018

[2019] HKCA 593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 473 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 877 OF 2017)

_______________

BETWEEN
	MOHAMMED FIROZ KHAN	Applicant
and
	WESLEY WONG, ESQ.,	Putative Respondent
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_______________

Before:

Hon Barma, Poon and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	8 April 2019
Date of Judgment:	30 May 2019

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 28 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 236), the Court of Appeal (Barma, Poon and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 21 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The intended judicial review was against the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 6 November 2017. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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

3.By a notice of motion dated 6 March 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ I am a boy from India. My problem is not finish (sic) in my country. As at this moment if I return, my enemy will kill me. To save my life, I want to stay in Hong Kong.”

5.In compliance with the directions given by Master Au-Yeung on 8 and 21 March 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 8 April 2019. In his written submissions, the applicant merely reiterated the background of his case and his request to stay in Hong Kong as he would face risk of harm if return to his home country.

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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. For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 28 February 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order. None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

8.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.