IQBAL ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 315/2018

[2019] HKCA 620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 315 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 851 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 2 April 2019 ([2019] HKCA 370) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 29 June 2018 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. 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 and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 23 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 7 May 2019.  

3.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 29 April 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant’s main complaint was about the lack of legal representation in respect of his claim under the BOR 2 risk and the lack of language assistance. 

5.  As noted in our judgment, he had the benefit of legal assistance in preparing his case before the Director and he had not suggested there was anything new thereafter which required fresh legal assistance.  He had been informed that if he had additional facts he should submit them but he did not do so, nor did he make any inquiries at any stage.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 23 April 2019 is dismissed.