SHEIK FORIED UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 250/2019

[2019] HKCA 1400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 250 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 110 OF 2018)

___________________

___________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.  By a judgment dated 18 October 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1169) (“the Judgment”), this Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 31 May 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement protection claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

Notice of Motion

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 22 October 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following as the ground of appeal[sic]:

“On October 2019 the Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed my [application] for leave to apply for judicial review, but I am not satisfy on this judgment. Now I want to apply to the Court of Final Appeal because Court of Final Appeal will give me best judgment. On the great importance and necessary of oppressed I have to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

5.  On 24 October 2019, Master Au-Yeung directed the applicant to lodge with the court his written submission on or before 5 November 2019.  The applicant lodged his written submission as directed.  In his written submission, the applicant said that the Director of Immigration and the Board did not consider his claim sufficiently, he was misled by the interpreter to say to the Board at the hearing that he had nothing to say and that he was not given legal assistance before the Board.  He also said that he had written down all his points to the Court of Appeal but the court did not consider his claim.

6.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

Discussion

7.  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.

8.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involves any question of great general or public importance such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. In any event, for the reasons that we gave in the Judgment, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judgment.   Nor do we find any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance are not met.

Disposition

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