Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 476/2018

[2019] HKCA 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 476 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 927/2017)

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

RE:

ZAMAN SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ

Applicant

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

Before:

Hon Kwan VP, Barma and McWalters JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:

26 July 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 26 February 2019, this court (Kwan, Barma and McWalters JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 14 September 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 11 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I am not satisfied with the decision because my life is not safe in my own country. Please allow me to stay in Hong Kong until I have problem in Pakistan. Please accept my application and allow me to proceed further.”

4.In his affirmation dated 11 April 2019, the applicant deposed that:

“I want to apply Notice of Motion due to lack of knowledge and insufficient resources I am late. You can understand my problem. Please accept my application and allow me to proceed forward.”

5.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 25 April 2019. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is not safe for him to return.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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 the Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in the 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 the Notice of Motion and written submission. The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground for appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any error in our judgment.

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 11 April 2019 is dismissed.