RE BEPARY MOHAMMAD ARSHED

CAMP 246/2019

[2021] HKCA 1271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 246 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 171/2017)

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 23 March 2021, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 26 January 2018 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 decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, 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 filed on 12 April 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform the [court] that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 May 2021. In the written submission, the applicant submitted that:

(1) the Board failed to meet the high standard of fairness. The applicant cited ST v Betty Kwan & Anor [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289 without explaining the relevance of those cases;

(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.  The Notice of Motion do not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no grounds that are reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submission identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that are reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 April 2021 is dismissed.