MOHAMMED ZAHID QAMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 503/2018

[2019] HKCA 597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 503 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 354 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 18 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 181), the Court of Appeal (Barma, Poon JJA and L Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 24 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 March 2018.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  By a notice of motion dated 4 March 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ I would like to inform 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 favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occurs different situation then what is mentioned in COL information. The officer and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

5.  In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 5 March 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 March 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant merely cited some case authorities and legal provisions in relation to non-refoulement protection claim without referring to his own case.

6.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 18 February 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

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