Re Afghan Abdul Qadar

CAMP 44/2019

[2019] HKCA 1219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 44 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 101 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 15 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 862), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 28 September 2018 in HCAL 101/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion dated 26 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“(1) I did not failure (sic) to lodge skeleton submission would cost me a hearing. I relied too much on my friends as no translation was given to me.

(2) The Immigration Department was procedurally unfair because there was a significant in the part where I could not obtain evidence during my interview. This is of particular importance as the Board did not find me a credible witness.

(3) You can see over country situation right know I mention before.  The immigration want witness then they can see in the news (sic).”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 September 2019.  In his written submissions, he repeated that his case was based on genuine facts and he had suffered mental torture in his home country.  He did not agree that internal relocation was a viable option for him as the Taliban carried out bomb attacks and killed many innocent civilians all over his country.  He further said that his home village had Taliban spies so that he would be tracked down easily if he returned home.

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.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.  Here, applicant merely regurgitated his arguments that were canvassed and repeatedly rejected by the lower court and the Court of Appeal.  The applicant had failed to pinpoint any errors of law or procedures in the Judge’s decision and in our judgment.  None of the matters stated in the notice of motion and the written submissions constituted valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 15 August 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person