RE HUSSAIN TANVEER

CAMP 122/2018

[2019] HKCA 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 122 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 827 OF 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 31 October 2018, this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 15 June 2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. By a notice of motion dated 13 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

(i)   Failing to apply the principle of rationality in considering the decisions of the Director and wrongly refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

(ii)   Failing to apply the principle of procedure fairness in considering the Director’s decision whereby the Director was required to give reasons to justify his decision.

(iii)   Internal relocation was not a viable option.  With the new anti-terrorism laws, anyone with money can bribe a corrupt police officer to locate him.

3.  In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-yeung on 15 November 2018, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 26 November 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant, further set out the following grounds:

(1)   The Director failed to consider whether state protection existed and whether there was a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Pakistan.

(2)   The Director failed to inquire, consider and assess fairly the relevant COI conditions of Pakistan and therefore, the Director could not possibly reach a fair and reasonable decision on his non-refoulement claim.

(3)   It was unreasonable for the Director to find that internal relocation was an option for the applicant and there was procedural unfairness that the applicant was not notified in advance before the screening interview and he was only asked for a single question whether he would be fine if he were to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan.

(4)   The Director failed to take into account relevant facts and took into account some irrelevant facts and as a consequence, arrived at an unreasonable decision in dismissing the applicant’s case. 

4.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

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.  The grounds stated by the applicant in the notice of motion do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  They are case and fact-specific and not questions of great general or public importance. 

7.  The grounds stated in the written submission are essentially the grounds of the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision as advanced before us in his application for an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision.  The grounds were duly considered and rejected by us at paragraphs 13 to 16 of our judgment of 31 October 2018. There is plainly no basis for the applicant to challenge our decision. 

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgement of 31 October 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submission involve an arguable point or is a question of great general or public importance.  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.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.