RE AKHTAR KAMRAN

CACV 157/2018

[2019] HKCA 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 157 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 322/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 28 September 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Chung J (“the judge”) on 2 May 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 15 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he did not understand the need to file submissions because of the lack of legal and language assistance.  He should be afforded an appeal hearing.  Further, the authorities had been cherry-picking the Country of Origin Information (COI) and thus committed an error in law.  Lastly he requests a translation of an order without specifying which order that is.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 28 October 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 his notice of motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and his written submission.  We have given reasons for vacating the appeal hearing at [13] of our judgment.  Ignorance of directions on the part of the applicant is not a sufficient excuse.  Further, the applicant failed to show any real prejudice from the absence of an appeal hearing, as he has not suggested what he could have put before the court had there been such a hearing.

7.  As for the ground based on COI, we have dealt with the same at [17] of our judgment.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, we can find nothing amiss in our judgment.  Lastly, as for the request of a translation of “an order”, this is not a matter that can properly be raised in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 15 October 2018 is dismissed.