Akhtar Junaid v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 519 /2019

[2020] HKCA 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 519 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2950 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 24 June 2020

Date of Judgment: 17 July 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down on 28 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 363). The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 1 November 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 2709) refusing leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 12 June 2020 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submission on 24 June 2020.  We find it appropriate to determine this application on paper.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 31 October 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

4.The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decision and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 12 November 2018.

5.He filed a Form 86 on 21 December 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 1 November 2019.

6.The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 8 November 2019.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 10 March 2020 but was adjourned to 26 May 2020 due to the general adjournment of the court proceedings for public health reasons.  The adjourned hearing was vacated as the applicant failed to lodge his skeleton argument by the time prescribed under the order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 November 2019 as extended by the direction of Kwan VP on 17 April 2020.  The appeal was dealt with on paper.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 May 2020.  The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 10 June 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that he does not agree with the Court of Appeal’s decision and did not get fair justice so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.In his written submission, he further submitted that:

(1)  He came to Hong Kong to save his life from his enemies who were powerful, influential and had power from the politicians.

(2)  Pakistani politics is the worst in the world.  Politicians always use terrorists to keep their power safe so when terrorists commit any crime, politicians cannot say anything to them.

9.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

10.The applicant’s grounds of appeal and submissions are bare assertions without evidence in support and do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his appeal and he has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.We therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person