KHAN SHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

CACV 368/2018

[2019] HKCA 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 368 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 629/2017)

___________________________

___________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon L Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 14 December 2018, this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC, Barma JA and L Chan J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 30 July 2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

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]

3.  By a notice of motion filed on 17 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended that:

(i)   There were many errors in law in the decisions and the decision makers just relied on the country of origin information (“COI”) and the factual information which were against him in order to reject his claim. 

(ii)   The actual life in Pakistan was different from what was mentioned the COI and the Pakistani officers and courts preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities.  Thus, the decisions to reject his claim were bias, formulated and calculated.  

5.  In compliance with the directions given by Master Au-yeung on 24 December 2018, the applicant lodged his written submission on 31 December 2018.  In substance, the applicant reiterated the factual background of his case as advanced before the Director and the Board and claimed that he would face risk of harm if he were refouled to his home country.

6.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.  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 just reiterated his complaint and disagreement against the decisions made by the Director and the Board which were duly considered and correctly rejected by the Judge at the lower court hearing.  The applicant did not have reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings.

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgement of 14 December 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submission involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

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