ARMAN AZAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 122/2023, [2023] HKCA 1112

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 122 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 782 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Pakistan whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 18 July 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 28 July 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that this court had erred in finding that the Judge had not failed to appreciate the significance of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The lack of assistance provided to the applicant was, he said, an error of law or procedure, and an unfairness. He said that by not having the decisions translated to him, he could not understand them to the fullest and that was unfair to him. He said he had been deprived of the opportunity of making a full appeal by the lack of language assistance.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 11 August 2023, the applicant essentially repeated what was stated in the Notice of Motion.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. The complaints about lack of language assistance which were made in the Notice of Motion for the first time are not proper grounds of appeal to the CFA.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.