MOHAMMED KALIMUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 507/2018

[2019] HKCA 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 507 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 335 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By a judgment dated 28 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 232), the Court of Appeal (Barma, Poon and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 26 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 9 February 2018.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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.

3.  By a notice of motion dated 5 March 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ I am not satisfied with the decision because this will lead my life danger towards more. I can’t go back to my home land at this moment because life not save in my country India. So please help me to stay in Hong Kong till my problems will be solved in my home land India.”

5.  In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 7 March 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 19 March 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant complained about the lack of legal representation and language assistance for his claim on BOR 2 risk and was deprived of oral hearings for his application for leave to apply for judicial review before the Judge and his appeal of the Judge’s decision before this court. 

6.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 28 February 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

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