RE NAWAZ MUHAMMAD RASHID

CACV 506/2020

[2021] HKCA 1263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1893 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 27 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 31 July 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.  On 5 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  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.

6.  The notice of motion stated that the applicant disagrees with the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Court in rejecting his claim and dismissing his appeal, and he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.   

7.  In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the basic facts underlying his claim, and argued that as his cousins were powerful and have political associations, he will not be able to obtain protection from the society and authorities.

8.  We are of the view that the matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the first place, the applicant has not put forward any ground to support his intended appeal.  Importantly, he has not shown that his intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  In any event, for the reasons we gave at [15] to [20] of our judgment, the applicant’s contention that he will face risks of harm upon return to his country is not an arguable ground of appeal. 

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.