Re Ibrar Muhammad

CACV 301/2022, [2024] HKCA 434

On Appeal From[2022] HKCFI 2245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 102 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 28 April 2023, this Court (Poon CJHC and Cheung JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 22 July 2022 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 8 May 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ 1) I did not failure to lodge the proofs to the TCAB and NOD. I try to file report in police station. After when I came here my family also try to solve problem but it does not work.

2) The judges mention that they were agree with the decision of TCAB and NOD that I can relocate any where in Pakistan. Its impossible to find work in our own village then its not possible for me relocate anywhere else in find a job. The ground detail will provid later.’

4.The applicant stated in his written submissions in summary the following points :

1)  High standards of fairness is required for determining torture claims: Secretary for Security v Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289;

2)  Appropriate standard of fairness depends on an examination of all aspects relating to the decision in question: R v Home Secretary ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560D-G.

3)  The Court should not usurp the function of the decision maker.

4)  The Court should determine non-refoulement cases with anxious scrutiny and rigorous examination.

5)  The Adjudicator did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility.

6)  The modified Wednesbury test is that the decision is beyond the range of responses open to reasonable decision‑maker: R v Ministry of Defense ex.p. Smith.

7)  Late filing of notice of appeal to the Board may only take account of statement of reason and any other relevant matter: section 37ZT.

8)  Internal relocation is impossible as it is unsafe.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant.

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

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 8 May 2023 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person