RE MUHAMMAD ZEESHAN

CAMP 93/2018

[2018] HKCA 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 93 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 503 of 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 18 October 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 7 June 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 31 October 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has put in a written submission dated 13 November 2018 in support of the application.

3.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, this Court may grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  The Notice of Motion did not set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  It merely stated that: (1) there is error in law in the decision; (2) the decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and previous facts that favoured the rejection of the applicant’s claim when the actual situation was different from what was mentioned in the COI; (3) officers and courts had ignored the evidence of violence committed on the minorities; and (4) the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach without considering that the applicant’s life is indeed in danger.

5.  In the written submission, the applicant argued that: (1) the decision entails real and significant implications for the applicant in that it will finally dispose of the applicant’s claim rendering him liable to be removed out of Hong Kong; and (2) the principle of high standards of fairness laid down in Secretary for Security v. Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 must be observed in the determination of torture claims.

6.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion relates to the applicant’s case and does not involve any question of great general or public importance.  The written submission also does not raise any question of great general or public importance to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.  The principle of high standards of fairness is well settled.      

7.  Further, for the reasons given in the Judgment, the matters put forward in the Notice of Motion are unarguable.   

8.  There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.   

9.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.