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

CACV 462/2019

[2021] HKCA 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 462 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1800 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

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

Date of Written Submissions: 11 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  21 May 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 29 May 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 21 May 2020 (“the Judgment”). In the Judgment, this Court (Au JA and S T Poon J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Deputy Judge”) dated 19 September 2019 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

(a)   he did not know that failure to lodge the written submissions would cost him an opportunity to be heard;

(b)   he should have shared with the interviewers the event that his father still attempted to solve the problem with his opponents up till present;

(c)   the judges were unfair in ruling that he was not a credible witness because of his failure to answer question about his imprisonment;

(d)   the judges did not want to hear his explanation as to why the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) refused his case. 

5.In his written submissions of 11 June 2020, the applicant advanced several grounds of appeal against the Board and the Director of Immigration.  Suffice for us to note that none of the grounds relate to any alleged errors in the Judgment. 

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is without merit.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in the Judgment.  Further, it is misconceived to state that he was deprived of the chance to be heard as he appeared before both the Deputy Judge and this Court.    

7.In the premises, and in any event, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Plainly, the statutory requirements under s.22(b) of the HKCFAO are not met.    

8.Accordingly, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Notice of Motion. 

The applicant acting in person