|
CAMP 93 /2022
[2022] HKCA 1201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 93 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1948 OF 2020)
____________________
| RE: |
Ditta Allah |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 21 July 2022
Date of Judgment: 16 August 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Pakistan whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 8 June 2022.[2]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 22 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the “principle of irrationality” and the “principle of procedural unfairness” to the decision made by the Director, and that the Director was required to give reasons justifying his decision.
3. On 21 July 2022 the applicant lodged written submissions for the present application. He submitted that the decision of this Court had been reached unfairly without giving him a hearing and an opportunity to make representations to clarify his case. He submitted that the standard of proof required was not high and that he did not have to show that it was highly probable or even probable that the risk would materialise, but that there were substantial grounds for believing that if he was returned to his country he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. He said that there were substantial grounds for believing that if he did in fact return to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle who wanted to get the land that the applicant’s father had transferred to him.
4. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1. We therefore refuse the applicant’s request for an oral hearing.
5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, provides:
“ (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court – … (b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, 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 for decision …”
6. We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision, and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|