RE RIAZ AHSAN

CACV 520/2018

[2019] HKCA 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 520OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 923/2017)

______________

______________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 4 March 2019[1] (“Judgment”), this court dismissed the abovenamed applicant’s appeal from Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffatt (“Judge”)’s decision dated 12 October 2018[2] (“Judge’s Decision”) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeals Board (“Board”)’s decision dated 15 November 2017 (“Board’s Decision”) in respect his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion filed on 18 March 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The notice of motion read follows:

“I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claims.”

3.  We read the notice of motion to be accusing those involved in the determination of non-refoulement claims (i.e. the Director of Immigration, the Board and the court) of approaching such claims mechanically with a pre-disposition for dismissal by relying on just generic country of origin information, without regard to the particular facts and evidence of the individual case.  The written submission lodged on 1 April 2019 reiterated the same theme.  The applicant has, however, not advanced any or any proper basis for so suggesting.

4.  Save as aforesaid, the applicant again impressed upon the court that he could not go back to Pakistan because his life would be in danger there; that he is a genuine asylum seeker; and that all his documents are real.  He also claimed to have made some mistakes in the papers previously submitted by him as he cannot read or write English and always has to rely on friends who are not professional translators.

5.  The applicant has not by such notice of motion or written submissions identified any issue of great, general or public importance that should be submitted for determination by the CFA.  The statutory criteria laid down in s 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) is thus not met.

6.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb under s 22(1)(b).

7.  As noted in paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 of the Judgment, the applicant had not in his Form 86 dated 21 November 2019 in HCAL 923/2017 stated any ground for judicial review of the Board’s Decision or in his notice of appeal or skeleton submissions filed herein on 16 October 2018 and 6 November 2018 respectively set out any ground of appeal against the Judge’s Decision. 

8.  Notwithstanding such failures, the Judge had scrutinised the Board’s Decision to satisfy herself that there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  We had likewise examined the Judge’s Decision to satisfy ourselves that she had not erred in law, failed to consider any relevant matter or otherwise been plainly wrong.

9.  For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.