Re Nawaz Khan Qureshi

CACV 538/2020

[2021] HKCA 1477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 538 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 180/2018)

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 15 October 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 6 May 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 filed on 15 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review, the Director of Immigration and the [Board] rejected my non refoulement claim. Total process I did not get justice. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 29 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why he considered it unsafe for him to return.

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.The applicant complained that he did not get justice but he did not give any particulars.  This ground is in our view not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is 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 15 June 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person