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

Re Ali Zulfiqar

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date10 April 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 281
Judgement NumberCACV343/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV343A/2018 RE ALI ZULFIQAR

CACV 343/2018

[2019] HKCA 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 343 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 842/2017)

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

RE: ALI ZULFIQAR Applicant

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

Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and L Chan J in Court
Date of Judgment: 10 April 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1. On 27 November 2018, this court (Barma JA and L Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 20 July 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 30 November 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“The Judges did not address the issues in the skeleton submission dated 22 October 2018 and I therefore verily believe that the Judges have not considered my appeal thoroughly.”

4. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 13 December 2018. In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion. He also submitted that the high standard of fairness had not been followed throughout his case and that his case should be remitted to the Director of Immigration for re-consideration of BOR2 risk.

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 submission do not constitute grounds for...

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