Re Khaliq Abdul

CACV 463/2020

[2021] HKCA 1901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 463 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 793/2018)

________________________

________________________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

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

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 24 May 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 21 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 722) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 2 September 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 2210) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 2 May 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim (“NRF 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):

“The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not want to return home. I want to apply to the Court of Final Appeal”

5.Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Registrar’s directions dated 25 May 2021, on 7 June 2021, the applicant lodged written submission by which he reiterated in gist the circumstances underlying the NRF Claim and the content of the notice of motion.

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.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment.  In our view, he has not put forward any ground that is reasonably arguable before the CFA.

9.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, acted in person