RE SHAHZAD UMAR

CACV 79/2019

[2019] HKCA 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL 79 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1557 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 21 June 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 15 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s dismissal of his appeal against the rejection of his non-refoulement claim by the Director of Immigration.

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

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 2 July 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The applicant’s notice of motion stated there was “some error in law” in our judgment but the grounds were framed ungrammatically and infelicitously.  Reading between the lines, the applicant seems to be saying that the decision makers just relied on the country of origin information and facts which were not in his favour in rejecting his claim.  Actual life was different from what was mentioned in the country of origin information. The officer and the Court preferred to ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities in search for the silver lining.  The decision was biased and the “formula” approach was unlikely to access the danger to his life and clearly unreasonable.  The applicant has, however, not provided any particulars or evidence to make good such complaint.

5.  The applicant’s written submission is a pro forma document commonly submitted to the Court in this type of application and lacked specificity and relevance.  It sets out in broad and general terms the legal principles, concepts and statutory provisions for non-refoulement claims and constitutional law cases, without analysis and reference to his case.

Legal principles

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“HKCFAO”), leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

Our view

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submission.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

Disposition

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 2 July 2019 is dismissed.