|
CAMP 59 /2019
[2019] HKCA 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 59 OF 2019
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 68 OF 2018)
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
Amin Md |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Kwan VP, Chu JA and Au JA |
| Date of Written Submission: |
29 July 2019 |
| Date of Judgment: |
28 August 2019 |
________________________
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 12 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 775), dismissing his application for extension of time to appeal against the judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.
2. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim by a Notice of Decision dated 28 August 2015 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 16 March 2017.
3. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decisions. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 10 January 2018.
4. He filed a Form 86 on 15 January 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board and his application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 7 December 2018.
5. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judge’s decision out of time. His application was refused by the judge on 26 March 2019 as there is no prospect of success in the intended appeal.
6. The applicant filed a renewed application with the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the decision of the judge out of time. It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 12 July 2019 as the applicant has not shown any prospect of success in the intended appeal.
7. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 15 July 2019 to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He stated the following in the Notice of Motion as his grounds of appeal:
“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable”.
8. In his written submissions dated 29 July 2019, he stressed that high standards of fairness are required in determination of a torture claim as the decision has a significant effect on the applicant’s claim. He also submitted that the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his credibility.
9. The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 17 July 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1. We consider it appropriate to proceed in this manner and shall determine this application on paper.
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 submissions are just bare assertions without substance. 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. For the above reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
(Susan Kwan)
Vice President |
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, acting in person
|