RE SULTAN ZAHID

CAMP 255/2019

[2020] HKCA 770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 255 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 41 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 18 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 473), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) refused to grant an extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) given on 24 April 2019 in HCAL 41/2018 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 22 December 2017 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 29 June 2017 rejecting his non - refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 26 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“Respected Sir/Madam, it is my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full (sic) to you.”

3.  In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 26 June 2020, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 July 2020.  In his written submission, he advanced the following:

(1)  He was not satisfied with all the decisions made in his case as they are not transparent and ignored many things related to his case.  The situation of his country is much different as the decision-makers might think of.  He urged the court to help him to stay in Hong Kong until he resolves his problem.

(2)  He would be tortured or even killed if refouled as his enemies are still looking for him and threatened to kill him.  His enemies are powerful and backed up by political party and he cannot protect himself.

(3)  The Pakistani police are corrupt. Death and torture of innocent people in police custody are common and the culprits may bribe to escape punishment.

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.  In our view, nothing set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions can constitute as viable ground of appeal as they did not pinpoint any error of law or raise any valid public law ground for disturbing our judgment.  As stated at [21] of our judgment, the applicant’s case was rightly rejected by the Board on the issue of credibility and as a matter of fact, he had safely relocated to other part of Pakistan for 2 months before he left his country.   We see no merit in his claim.

7.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 18 June 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is 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.