RE ZUMURD HUSSAIN

CACV 125/2018

[2018] HKCA 660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 125 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 264/2017)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 10 August 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of D’Almada Remedios J (“the judge”) on 25 April 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 17 August 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that it is not safe for him to return to Pakistan and he does not agree with the Director’s decision.

4.  Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 23 August 2018, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we can find no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from all the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.

7.  The applicant’s claim that it is not safe for him to return to Pakistan does not constitute a valid ground of appeal.  In any event, the Board had held at [23] of Board’s decision dated 27 April 2017 that there is no substantial ground to believe that the applicant will face a future risk of serious harm.  At [24] the Board also held that it is safe for him to live in Pakistan (other than in his home locality). 

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

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 17 August 2018 is dismissed.