RE AFZAL AMIR

CACV 213/2020

[2021] HKCA 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1449 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 16 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 244), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 9 June 2020 in HCAL 1449/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 17 July 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 30 October 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 22 March 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“The Court of Appeal and the High Court Decision is not satisfied. To get Justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. Please accept my application.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 March 2021, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 7 April 2021.   He failed to do so.

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.  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. 

6.  Here, applicant failed to raise any grounds of appeal to pinpoint any error of law in our judgment and what was stated in the Notice of Motion does not amount to viable ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  As explained at [10] of our judgment, the applicant’s case was rejected on the issue of credibility that he was unable to provide a minimally coherent account of his story to prove his case on any of the applicable grounds.  We took a concurrent view with the Judge that there is no valid public law ground for the court to intervene with the Board’s decision and we found no merit in the applicant’s case.

7.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 16 March 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

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