MUHAMMAD BILAL alias BILAL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 451/2020

[2021] HKCA 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 451 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 634 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 31 August 2020 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 24 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that (sic):

“Its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 31 March 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He contended that the Pakistan government is corrupt and will not protect him.  He claimed that in all the decisions given before the Notice of Motion, there were “many things…related [to his] case [that] are ignored” and this shows the decisions were not transparent.

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.  The applicant failed to supply any particulars for the grounds of application, such as the matters said to have been ignored by the decision makers.  Further, we have given detailed reasons for our decision in [17] – [22] of our judgment and the applicant did not identify any error in our judgment.  In our view, the grounds based on the lack of consideration of certain matter and lack of transparency are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  As for the ground based on the alleged danger upon his return, we have already held at [21] of our judgment that there is no public law error in the Board’s Decision and the Board has held that he is unlikely to be harmed upon his return and in any event internal relocation would be viable.  This ground is therefore not reasonably arguable as well.

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 24 March 2021 is dismissed.