Re Muhammad Asghar Shaikh

CACV391/2020

[2021] HKCA 953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 391 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2872/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  13 July 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”)  on 6 August 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dismissing his appeal from the decisions 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 29 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to reject the decision made by the TCAB and subsequently the Court of First Instance, which claimed that the COI is substantial enough to prove there is no procedural error and dismiss my case as not reliable and not genuine.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 12 April 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He claimed that “the COI [Country of Origin information] stated by the TCAB was just based on knowledge by their own state report without understanding the cultural context in Pakistan”.  He also claimed that the Director “failed to consider the factors in local contexts and he does not understand the intricacies of the situation in the country”.

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.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no grounds that are reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 29 March 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person