RE RAZA AHMED

CACV 197/2018

[2018] HKCA 938

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 197 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 796/2017)

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

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

Before:  Hon Yuen JA, Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 September 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 21 May 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 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 24 September 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that:

(1)  the decision makers just relied on Country of Origin Information (COI) without considering the actual situation faced by the applicant;

(2)  the decision makers adopted a biased and formulaic approach in making their decisions.

4.  Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 5 October 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 see no reason 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 the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.  Both grounds in the notice of motion lack particulars and are plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 September 2018 is dismissed.