RE ALI ZULFIQAR

CACV 543/2018

[2019] HKCA 785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 543 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 64/2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 10 April 2019, this court (Chu, Barma and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 26 October 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 decision 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 23 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“- the claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true

- on the strength of the grounds not made a complaint about poor performance of his duty lawyer is due to fearing he will be singled out for misappropriating by the Adjudicator

- the applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

         rest of the grounds I will submit later”

4.  In the affirmation dated 23 April 2019, the applicant stated that:

“The Honourable Judges from the Court were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement.

The Honourable Judges from the Court also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Pakistan.”

5.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 21 May 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant repeated the facts supporting his non-refoulement claim.  He also referred to a number of cases on the high standard of fairness.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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 the Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion, affirmation 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 the Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission.  

8.  The applicant failed to give any particulars of the error allegedly made by this court, as stated in his Notice of Motion and affirmation.  The matters mentioned in the affirmation were in any event dealt with in our judgment at [14].  They are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.  The applicant failed to explain how the cases on high standard of fairness can be applied to his case.  In our view, none of these grounds is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 23 April 2019 is dismissed.