Re Parwez Mohammad Shahid

CACV 505/2018

[2021] HKCA 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 505 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 195 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA, Fung and G Lam JJ in Court

Date of Judgment:  3 May 2021

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 26 March 2019, this court (Barma JA, Fung and G Lam JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 24 September 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review to upturn 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 6 October 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“Respectfully, before upon reading the Order by the Honourable Justice that my appeal for leave to apply for judicial review be refused and it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed. I would like to appeal on your Honour’s Court again that I don’t want to go back in my country because my life is in danger in my country. So it is my kindly request to the Court to please accept my appeal again and allow me to stay in Hong Kong. And according to the situation of my country there is a problem of coronavirus also and nowadays it’s increasing. So again I request to the Court to please accept my appeal.”

4.In the affirmation dated 6 October 2020, the applicant deposed that:

“Respectful Judge, I write this affirmation to know the Court that I received my Judgment from the Court on 06/10/2020, so, that is the reason for late filing of Notice of Motion. So it is my kindly request to the Court to please allow me to appeal again.”

5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 20 October 2020.  In the written submission, the applicant contended that the Board failed to properly assess his credibility and acted in a procedurally unfair manner.  The applicant also referred to a number of decisions on Wednesbury unreasonableness without explaining their relevance to the application.

6.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation 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.

7.This application is long out of time, having been made nearly 18 months late. No proper explanation has been provided for the delay. In any event, 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.

8.The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground for judicial review or ground of appeal.  The applicant has also failed to identify any error in our judgment. In our view, the intended appeal has no prospect of success.

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

10.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 October 2020 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person.