Re Shahzad

CACV 28/2021

[2021] HKCA 1747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 28 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2312 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Au JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 29 November 2021

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.On 9 September 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Lisa Wong J) judgment of 16 August 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1191).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang dated 21 January 2021 refusing to grant to the applicant leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 127).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant asserted he would be in grave danger if he returned to Pakistan and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) was misguided to believe that Pakistan would practise the rule of law when in actual fact the government could not protect him.

5.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 14 September 2021.  In those submissions, he reiterated the dangers he might face if he returned to Pakistan and contended that the Board believed in the country of origin information which did not reflect the real picture of Pakistan.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits. None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions identified any specific errors in the Judgment.  They are therefore not viable grounds. General assertions of his fear if refouled also do not constitute viable grounds.  The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

8.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 9 September 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person