RE FAISAL SHAHZAD

CACV 602/2020

[2021] HKCA 1685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 602 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 414 OF 2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 6 July 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 (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) 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 filed on 9 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The High Court dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I came to the Court of Appeal for appeal. The Court of Appeal too dismissed my leave. I did not get justice. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 23 August 2021. In the written submissions, the applicant explained why it was unsafe for him to return. He submitted that he had been aggrieved by the decisions by this court, the Board and the Director but he did not explain why that was the case.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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 therefore fail to raise any 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 9 August 2021 is dismissed.