ISLAM MOHAMMAD HAIZUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CACV 103 /2019

[2019] HKCA 904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 103 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1121 OF 2018)

________________________

______________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 28 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 727), dismissing his appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Decision dated 8 December 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

3.  The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decision and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 4 June 2018.

4.  He filed a Form 86 on 19 June 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 22 February 2019.

5.  The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 4 March 2019.  The appeal was heard on 25 June 2019.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 June 2019 as there is no merit in the appeal and no prospect of success in the intended application for judicial review.

6.  The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 12 July 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 26 July 2019.

7.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that he was not satisfied with the judgment and the judges failed to show any good reason for refusing his claim.

8.  In his written submission, he reiterated the background of his case and submitted that the Board decided that his case was a fabricated story but everything he told was true.  He further submitted that he did not get proper decision from the High Court and Court of Appeal.

9.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 15 July 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We think it appropriate to do so and will determine this application on paper.

Discussion and disposition

10.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

11.  The applicant’s grounds of appeal and his submissions are just bare assertions without substance.  They do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  We therefore dismiss his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.