RE JUNAID KHAN

CACV 65/2019

[2019] HKCA 1079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 581 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 25 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 774), the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 1 February 2019 in HCAL 581/2017 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 26 July 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.  In the notice of motion, the applicant complained that:

“1.  I did not know failure to lodge skeleton submission would cost me an appeal hearing. I specially requested one, I suppose I relied too much on my friends as no translation was given to me.

2.  Judges were procedurally unfair their have significary (sic) in my case because affairing (sic) in Pakistan with any girl and then after that her family knows about affair then her brother and father cannot leave guy until death (sic)”

4.  On 31 July 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the Registrar”) directed the applicant to lodge with the court his written submissions on or before 9 August 2019.  The applicant lodged his written submission on 7 August 2019.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application shall be determined on paper accordingly.

5.  In his written submission, he reiterated his case that despite the affair with his girlfriend and the alleged death threats imposed by the family of his girlfriend were private and personal in nature, his girlfriend’s family was related to the dominant political party and police in Pakistan and he would face real risk of harm or even get killed if refouled.  He disagreed that internal relocation was a viable option for him as it would be difficult for him to find jobs in other parts of Pakistan.

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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. 

7.  The complaints set out in the notice of motion and written submission do not identify any error of law in the Judge’s decision and do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant merely repeated his arguments as advanced before the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Judge which were duly rejected. 

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 25 July 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. We also do not see any basis for granting leave under the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) are not met.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.