Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 476/2020

[2021] HKCA 1683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 476 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1489 OF 2018)

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

RE:

RIZWAN MUHAMMAD

Applicant

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

Before: Hon Barma JA and Linda Chan J in Court

Date of Judgment: 17 November 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 13 July 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 (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) 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 29 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal[2]. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the [Director] refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.

3. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

4.The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 11 August 2021. In the written submissions, the applicant submitted that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant identified a number of alleged errors in our judgment but he did not provide particulars of any of them. The Notice of Motion and submissions also do not engage the reasons for dismissing the appeal given in [13] and [14] of our judgment. None of those grounds is therefore 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 July 2021 is dismissed.