Re Shahzad Khurram

CACV 484/2020

[2021] HKCA 1903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 484 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2003/2018)

________________________

________________________     

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

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

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 24 June 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 785) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 15 June 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 1128) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 24 August 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim (“NRF Claim”).

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Having considered the material before us, we are of the view that 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 High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review against the adjudicator as well as Director of Immigration decision. The adjudicator decision was on the base of COI. But practical life and COI is far difference. For the great interest of oppressed people life I want go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

5.On 22 July 2021, the applicant lodged written submission by which he again asserted that some supporters of the rival political party of Muslim League (noon) wanted to kill him and suggested that he did not “get true justice” without giving any particulars.

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 written submission engages the reasons for dismissing the appeal given in [19] – [21] of the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment. 

As noted in [10] of the Judgment, the Board found the NRF Claim to be built on the applicant’s speculation and imagination.  Contrary to the suggestion in the notice of motion, the Board made such finding by examining the account of events given by the applicant without reference to any country of origin information.  Further, the much repeated bare assertion in his written submission that he was at risk of being killed by people of the opposite political party contradicts the said finding by the Board.  Yet, the applicant has not articulated any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board that rendered such findings unsafe.  In our view, the applicant 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, appeared in person