RE RAJA WAQAR KHAN

CACV 54/2019

[2019] HKCA 1148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1039 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 25 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 772), the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung (“the Judge”) dated 23 January 2019 in HCAL 1039/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 27 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to appeal and renew the judgment made by the Court of Appeal. The judgment made by the Court of Appeal dismissed the current situation in Pakistan. They disregard my dangerous situation. Also, I am not a Hong Kong citizen. I do not understand the legal systems and procedures. Therefore, I would like to appeal the decision made by the Court of Appeal.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 10 September 2019 in which he advanced the following grounds:

(1)  The Pakistani government has failed to protect its people and to ensure proper legal redress. 

(2)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) did not understand the cultural context in Pakistan that there were human rights violations and the national security forces were implicated in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. 

(3)  Internal relocation is not viable as people can easily be tracked down in a heavily communal Muslims country.

(4)  He did not agree with the judges’ findings that he was not a credible person and his alleged harm was not up to the threshold on all the applicable grounds.

(5)  The Director of Immigration had failed to consider the factors in local contexts and did not understand the intricacies of the situation of Pakistan when assessing his claim.   

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.  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.  Here, the applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being pursued and killed by drug dealers for his refusal to sell drugs in secondary schools for them and his case was rejected by the Board on the issue of credibility.   The Board found no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence of any form or of the applicant had suffered any physical or mental pain that attained the minimum level of severity.  In any event, the applicant should be able to avoid the local drug dealers by internal relocation.  The Board’s findings were duly endorsed by the Judge and the applicant did not pinpoint any errors of law or procedure in the Judge’s decision before the Court of Appeal.  In the circumstances, what the applicant stated in the notion of motion and written submissions simply cannot stand.

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 25 July 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

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