|
CACV 24/2023, [2023] HKCA 828
On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 24 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 881 OF 2019)
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SHAHZAD KHURRAM |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam JA and Lisa Wong J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
2 June 2023 |
| Date of Judgment: |
11 July 2023 |
_________________
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. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2023.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 19 May 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that there is some error in law in the decision, that the actual situation is different from the country of origin information, that the decision-makers had ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that the decisions have betrayed a biased and formulaic approach.
3. In his written submissions for the present application, the applicant has set out certain passages from previous court decisions but has not explained how they apply to his case.
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.
5. 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 (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Lisa Wong)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
|
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|