RE BASHIR AFZAAL

CAMP 80/2017

[2018] HKCA 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 80 OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 116 OF 2017)

___________________

___________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  We (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down our judgment dismissing the application for extension of time to appeal on 5 February 2018.

2.  On 15 February 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions in support of his application on 9 March 2018[1].  The written submissions raised for the first time an argument on lack of legal representation and interpretation assistance.  He further reiterated that he was a foreign layman who does not speak the local language and he had limited English and knowledge in the court process.  He said the process was harsh to him.

4.  Neither the high standard of fairness laid down in Sakthevel Prabakar v Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 nor the judgment of FB v Director of Immigration HCAL 51 of 2007 prescribed that a CAT claimant or a claimant for BOR 2 or BOR 3 or persecution risks must have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings.  The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director of Immigration by the immigration officer when he advanced his non-refoulement claim.

5.  Interpretation assistance was available at the hearing before the Board upon request.  The applicant did not suggest that his request had been denied.   

6.  He has not put forward any reasonable argument to challenge the finding of the Board that there is no real risk of harm and internal relocation is viable and our conclusion that such finding is a finding perfectly open to the Board.

7.  Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.  There is no question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  There is no reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.

8.  The Notice of Motion of 15 February 2018 is dismissed.