Ahmed Naseer v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 292/2020

[2021] HKCA 351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 292 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2381 of 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA, Au JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submission:  17 February 2020

Date of Judgment:  20 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 21 January 2021, this Court (Chu JA and S T Poon J) handed down our judgment[1] (the “Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 22 June 2020 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 26 January 2021 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 17 February 2021.

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 January 2021, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:

“THE HIGH COURT JUDGES REFUSED MY LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH IS VERY SORRY FOR ME. I CANNOT RETURN HOME ANY WAY, BUT ALL MY CASE IS REFUSED. ONLY WAY TO STAY HONG KONG IS APPLY TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

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

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

(2)  Politicians in his country would use terrorists to win elections. 

(3)  The applicant always protests for the general public but no one would stand for him when the terrorists came with weapons.

(4)  The applicant fled to Hong Kong after decision from his family elders.  He believes that his unsuccessful application in the screening process was due to the fact that the Immigration Department treated the vast majority of the cases in the screening process as fake.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The applicant’s grounds of appeal and submissions do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They are mere bare assertions without evidence in support.  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). 

8.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

10.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 26 January 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.