Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Akhtar Kamran

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date18 January 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 65
Year2019
Judgement NumberCACV157/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV157A/2018 RE AKHTAR KAMRAN

CACV 157/2018

[2019] HKCA 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 157 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 322/2017)

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

RE: AKHTAR KAMRAN Applicant

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

Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Poon JA in Court
Date of Handing Down Judgment: 18 January 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1. On 28 September 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Chung J (“the judge”) on 2 May 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 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 15 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he did not understand the need to file submissions because of the lack of legal and language assistance. He should be afforded an appeal hearing. Further, the authorities had been cherry-picking the Country of Origin Information (COI) and thus committed an error in law. Lastly he requests a translation of an order without specifying which order that is.

4. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 28 October 2018. In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.

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 his notice of motion and written submission.

6. The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT