RE MUNSHI HARUNUR RASHID

CACV 244/2018

[2019] HKCA 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1002 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 13 November 2018, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’). 

1.2   The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

2)  Grounds for application

2.1   It is difficult to understand the content of the Notice of Motion.  As far as it could be understood, the applicant seemed to state that the judgment does not reflect his grounds of appeal; that his duty lawyer poorly performed; that he did not have enough time to address the hearing bundle.

2.2   The applicant’s supporting affirmation stated the grounds of his application for leave to appeal was that the Courts were wrong in law in holding there was no state acquiescence.  It stated that the Court failed to look at current country of origin information.

2.3   The applicant’s written submissions lodged on 20 December 2018 cited various legal authorities in relation to non‑refoulement claims.  The applicant has provided no explanation nor particulars as to how those provisions applied to his case, or how they applied to his grounds of appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1   Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3.2   The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, supporting affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion, supporting affirmation and written submissions.

3.3   We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.     For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2018 is dismissed.