RE MOHAMMAD ARKAM

CACV254/2019

[2021] HKCA 431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 254 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 465/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 7 May 2020, this court (Cheung JA, Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 31 May 2019 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 20 May 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1.  The [judges] were wrong…for not having applied the principle of irrationality to [the Director’s Decision].

2.  The [judges] were wrong…for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to [the Director’s Decision] whereby the Director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

3.  The option of relocation is a mere joke.  Nobody can hide in Pakistan under new anti-terrorism laws.  Anyone with money can find a corrupt police officer and pay him to search me with one click.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 28 May 2020.  The applicant submitted that:

(1)  the Board failed to meet the high standard of fairness;

(2)  the Board failed to properly assess his credibility; and

(3)  the Board’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by 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.  

7.  All of the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant lack particulars and we are of the view that these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2020 is dismissed.