Re Chaudhry Asjad Iqbal

CACV 117/2019

[2020] HKCA 204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 117 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1411/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 1 August 2019, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 27 February 2019 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 decision 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 8 August 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform court there is error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information officers and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 22 August 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant submitted that:

(1)     his life will be in danger if he returns to Pakistan;

(2)     the court should look once more at his case record and the current situation.

5.The applicant also attached a document apparently related to the situation in Pakistan to his submission.

6.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 the Notice of Motion 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.  

8.The applicant did not provide particulars for the grounds advanced in the Notice of Motion and the submission.  Further, as we have held at [15] of our judgment, the applicant needs to identify some public law errors in the Board’s Decision which held that he is unlikely to suffer from any of the proscribed harm upon his return.  The applicant has failed to do so and in our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 8 August 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person