RE CHAYAL MAHABUB

CAMP 286/2019

[2021] HKCA 1812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 286 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 598/2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 28 April 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”)  on 28 June 2019 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 application, 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 filed on 18 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform the [court] that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 16 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also submitted that:

(1)  the Board failed to meet the high standard of fairness.  The applicant cited ST v Betty Kwan & Anor [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289 without explaining the relevance of those cases; and

(2)  the decision maker was required to act fairly.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion 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 documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant 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.  

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 18 May 2021 is dismissed.