Re Ali Karamat

CACV 553/2019

[2020] HKCA 584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 553 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1031/2018)

_______________________________

_______________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  22 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  22 July 2020

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

Introduction

1.On 8 June 2020, the Applicant filed his Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 25 May 2020. 

2.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 (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.The Applicant has set out the following grounds for leave to appeal in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ I would like to appeal against the judgment made on my case. The procedural errors, and lack of depth in understanding my context has affected their decision over my case.”

4.In his written submissions of 22 June 2020, the Applicant referred to the human right situation in Pakistan and challenged the TCAB’s assessment based on the COI of Pakistan.  He said the Director failed to consider the factors in local context and he did not understand the intricacies of the situation in the country.

5.The Applicant has not identified any specific procedural errors by the court.  No discernible or viable grounds for leave to appeal has been raised by the Applicant in that respect.

6.On the context and local condition of Pakistan, as stated at [13(1)] of the judgment of 25 May 2020, these are primarily the task of the Director and the TCAB.  In the present case, the Judge did not find any public law ground to warrant the court to intervene with their assessment. The Judge’s decision was upheld on appeal.  The repetition by the Applicant in the present application of general condition in Pakistan could not take his case further.

7.The Applicant’s grounds for leave to appeal to the CFA, whether in his Notice of Motion or in his written submissions in support, failed to engage with the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal by this Court or to pinpoint any error by this Court, and are thus patently unarguable.

8.We are not satisfied that there is reasonably arguable ground to meet the threshold criteria under Section 22.

9.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA. We would dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person