RE AQEEL MUHAMMAD

CAMP 39/2020

[2021] HKCA 1118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 39 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 660 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 15 April 2021 ([2021] HKCA 413), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA)  refused to grant an extension of time to the applicant to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”)  given on 15 June 2018 in HCAL 660/2017 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  given on 12 October 2016 and 1 September 2017 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  given on 13 January 2015 and 2 February 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 28 April 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following ground:

“I am late for apply due to lack of knowledge and insufficient sources. Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case further. I hope I will get your favour.”

3.  In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 29 April 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 6 May 2021. 

4.  In the written submissions, he advanced the following:

(1)  His life will become worse if refouled and he was not satisfied with all the decisions made in his case.

(2)  The points in his case were ignored and the decisions were not transparent.  The situation of his country is much different as the decision-makers might think and it is hard for him to live and stand in front of his enemies.

(3)  Torture and deaths are common in police custody in Pakistan.  The police and other law making authorities are corrupt and would only support those people who bribe them.  It is difficult to get justice unless one is rich or with political background.

(4)  It was impossible for him to go back to Pakistan at the present stage and he urged the court to understand his problem and let him stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved.

5.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  The applicant failed to pinpoint any error or raised any discernible grounds of appeal to reverse our judgment.  None of the matters raised in the notice of motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

8.  Here, the Board dismissed the applicant’s case on the basis that the alleged incidents of assaults in 2008 were typically fights between boys which was private in nature and without any state involvement.  Thus the applicant’s fear of harm by his enemies upon his return to Pakistan was totally unfounded, especially given the long lapse of time and in any event, internal relocation would be a reasonable and viable option if the applicant still fears for his safety.   In our view, the Board’s decision is fully justified and eminently reasonable.  We do not see any merit in the applicant’s case.  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal is unarguable and bound to fail.

9.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 15 April 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

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