Ghaffar Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 253/2022

[2022] HKCA 1892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 253 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2157 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 17 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 14 August 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 25 November 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:

“I am writing this grounds regarding my notice of appeal was dismissed by high court but still I am scared to go to my country because when I was there I many danger incident in my life. If I go at this movement my life deffinity in trouble, and again they kidnap and force me to kill innocent people, and the police department allso support them for many kind of insentive. I was unable to submit document proof. I will try my best to obtain about present situation this is my true problem”.

3.The Applicant on 7 December 2022 lodged written submissions in support of the application.

4.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.

5.Under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

6.We have considered the Notice of Motion and the written submissions. The Applicant simply repeats what he has previously submitted. Still no documentary proof has been provided. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb.

7.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person.