Re Abdus Salam

CACV 125/2019

[2021] HKCA 154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 125 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1712/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 3 October 2019, this court (Lam VP, Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 8 March 2019 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review for want of prosecution. 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 15 October 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 the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this 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 not reasonable.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 29 October 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant referred to a number of cases on the high standard of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness, without relating them to the circumstances of his case. He also referred to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, which does not appear to have any relevance to his application.

5.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 documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant 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.  

7.In any event, we are not satisfied that the ground based on Country of Origin Information has any merit.  As we have observed in [31] of our judgment, the Board dismissed the applicant’s claim because it took the view that the applicant “fabricated” his claim.   We have held that there was no basis on which to disturb this finding and the evaluation of the Country of Origin Information would therefore not have any impact on the outcome of this case.  In any event, this ground lacks particulars and is therefore bound to fail.

8.As we have noted, in relation to the cases referred to in the written submission, the applicant has wholly failed to explain how they are relevant to the present appeal.

9.In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

11.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 15 October 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person