Re Mehmood Qaiser

CACV 588/2019

[2020] HKCA 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 588 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1961/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Kwan VP , Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submission:  29 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  16 July 2020

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 15 June 2020 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 431) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 11 December 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 2992) by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 3 September 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):

“On 4 June 2020 the Honourable judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not agree with them. I want to apply but I have no way except go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

5.Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Registrar’s directions dated 16 June 2020, on 29 June 2020, the applicant filed the following written submission in support of the notice of motion (sic): 

“I beg most respectfully to state that I am a boy from Pakistan. My name is Mehmood Qaiser. My language is Urdu. Every body know Pakistan is a land of terrorist. All political leaders keep terrorist for their own safety and continue their massel power in his own locality. If any one raise voice against any leader he will be killed by that leader with the help of his gang. My enemy was very big and powerfull leader. Nobody can’t fled from him. All his opposition he kill. He was self declared king of our area.

I am very lucky as I can fled to Hong Kong.  But Director of Immigration and adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board cancel my claim.  But they could not show any good cause.  I did not get justice.  I came for leave to appeal for judicial review.  But the judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave application.  I do not satisfy.  I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

Please permit me to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

Discussion

6.The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

8.Neither the notice of motion nor the applicant’s written submission has really engaged the reasons given in the Judgment. Although the applicant expressed disagreement with the Judgment, he has not articulated in what way(s) this court had gone wrong.

9.Further, the claims in the applicant’s written submission as to how leaders in Pakistan allegedly strengthen their power and control and eliminate opposition with the use of terrorists and that the applicant’s enemy is such a leader are entirely new and did not form part of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim placed before the Director of Immigration or the Board.  As noted in [2] of the Judgment, the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, as previously presented, was premised upon a fear of being harmed or even killed by (1) his cousin’s husband and his accomplices because the applicant witnessed a murder they committed and (2) his paternal cousins because of a land dispute between them and the applicant and his father. 

10.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person