RE SHAH SABIR HUSSAIN

CAMP 242/2022, [2024] HKCA 437

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 242 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1240 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.  On 28 April 2023, this Court handed down decision ([2023] HKCA 605) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 1 March 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 23 May 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 6 June 2023.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that 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.

6.  The applicant stated in the notice of motion that :

‘ DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS BOARD TOO DISMISSED. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GRANT MY LEAVE. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE. TO GET JUSTICE I WANT TO GO TO COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.’

7.  In summary the applicant stated the following in the written submissions :

1)  The applicant’s claim is that if refouled he would be harmed or killed by members of MQM because he supported Awami National Party;

2)  MQM members burned down the applicant’s property and kidnapped the applicant, kept him in a room with very little food and water without light;

3)  When MQM members received money from the applicant’s relative they released the applicant;

4)  The applicant was forced to leave Pakistan;

5)  The Director, the Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal all dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant applies to the Court of Final Appeal now for relief; and

6)  The applicant will ‘talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker’.

8.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. All the matters contained in the applicant’s written submission are matters that are within the provenance of the Board. They do not show how or where the Judge made any error of law or procedural unfairness.

9.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

10.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.