MEHMOOD KASHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 470/2020

[2021] HKCA 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 470 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 877 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 29 March 2021, this court (Lam VP, Yau and S T Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 9 September 2020 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 the 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 8 April 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”[sic]

4.  Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 9 April 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 19 April 2021. Those submissions consist in large part of general statements of law quoted from decided cases, without identifying how they specifically relate to or apply in this case.

5.  In addition, in those submissions the applicant argued for the first time that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner by failing to properly assess his credibility.  However, he did not provide any particulars in support of this argument.  In any event, this Court will not entertain any grounds for appeal or judicial review which could and should have been but were not raised in the judicial review application or at the substantive appeal.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.  The applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in our judgment of 29 March 2021 for dismissing his appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

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 24 March 2021 is dismissed.