RE IMRAN KHAN

CACV 64/2019

[2019] HKCA 1450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 64 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1020 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the court):

1.  By a judgment dated 15 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 711) (“the Judgment”), this court (Hon Chu, Barma and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung as set out in the Form CALL-1 dated 31 January 2019 [2019] HKCFI 269, refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review is against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 May 2018 and the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 2 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

4.  By a Notice of Motion dated 18 July 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

“I would like to inform you regarding my civil appeal was rejected by court. But according to our country situation my life in danger because Taliban movement is very dangerous movement if I go my life become unsecure can be loose the life too in the otherhand I don’t have any law knowledge to handle my case and I cannot afford to pay money for any solicitor because I don’t have any income in Hong Kong to live. When my oral hearing I like to explain my situation to you. Thank you.” [sic]

7.  In compliance with the directions given by Master Au-Yeung on 19 July 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 29 July 2019.  In the written submissions, he simply stated that he did not have supporting documents at hand and that his life would be in danger due to the Taliban movement if he were refouled to his home country.

8.  We have duly considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

9.  In our view, this application has no merits.

10.  The applicant merely repeated his case in the Notice of Motion and written submissions without identifying any errors allegedly committed by this court in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  There are simply no viable grounds that warrant the grant of leave to appeal the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

11.  In any event, for the reasons that we have given above, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judgment.  Further, none of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are not met.

12.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.