Amir Shahzad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 281/2019

[2019] HKCA 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 281 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1673 OF 2018)

_____________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Chu JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment: 14 January 2020

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This court handed down judgment on 18 October 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1168) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Woodcock given on 17 June 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 28 October 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.The Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the Registrar”) directed on 30 October 2019 that the applicant shall lodge with the court his written submissions on or before 11 November 2019. Up to the date of this judgment, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual procedure of determining this application on paper without an oral hearing.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:

“This is an my humble request in front of you please allow me to process further my application so that I can save my life and can stay here until I have [no] problem in my own country. I will be [grateful] to you for your kind help.” [sic]

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

7.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The Notice of Motion dated 28 October 2019 is dismissed.

The appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person.