Re Iqbal Parvaiz

CACV 452/2019

[2020] HKCA 614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 915 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before :  Hon Cheung, Yuen and Au JJA in Court

Date of Decision : 28 July 2020

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 20 January 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 20 September 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The 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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 22 January 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The contents of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  From a best effort reading it seems that the applicant is alleging that the Court relied on country of origin information which was not in his favour.   He complained that there was overwhelming evidence of violence towards him.  The Court’s ‘formula approach’ did not fairly assess his case. 

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

3.2The applicant provided written submissions.  The contents were handwritten and generally undecipherable.  With our best reading effort, the applicant submitted that he was not aware that a failure to submit skeleton submissions before the Court of Appeal meant that his scheduled hearing was vacated, and that an absence of an oral hearing was an injustice to him.  There is no merit in this argument as the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals were clear.  Further, it is trite that there is no absolute right to an oral hearing: ST v Betty Kwan [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 at paragraph 26.  The applicant then focused his complaints on BOR 2 deficiencies on how there was a lack of legal representation and language assistance.  First it is trite that there is no absolute right to legal representation at all stages of the applicant’s proceedings.  Further, as a matter of fact, BOR 2 in the applicant’s case was considered altogether with the applicant’s risk of torture, risk of persecution and BOR 3 issues in the Director’s Notice of Decision.  It was not a separate hearing with a separate BOR 2 assessment.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

3.3We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 22 January 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person