MAQSOOD AHMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 421/2023, [2024] HKCA 964

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 3242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 421 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 356 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 30 August 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 5 September 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant simply stated that he “would like to reject and review the decision made by the court” and that the court had disregarded his dangerous situation.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 20 September 2024, the applicant alleges that Pakistan has a corrupt system and is fraught with problems on human rights and a place in which it is very easy to track down another person.

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).  The applicant has also failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  His submissions about Pakistan do not assist him at all in circumstances where his non-refoulement claim was rejected because the Board found him dishonest and unreliable and consequently did not accept the factual elements of this case.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.