RE HOSSAIN ALMGIR

CACV 298/2019

[2020] HKCA 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 298 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 878 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the court):

1.  By a reasons for judgment dated 11 October 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1110) (“the Judgment”), this court (Hon Zervos, Au JJA and Coleman J) gave the reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 18 June 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 1412), refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review is against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 9 May 2018 and the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 14 September 2015 and 12 October 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

4.  By a Notice of Motion dated 5 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

6.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

“IT IS VERY UPSET THAT THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY APPEAL. I COULD NOT THINK EDUCATED AND HONOURABLE JUDGES HOW CAN DISMISSED MY CLAIM. IN MY WRITTEN SUBMISSION I WROTE MULTIPLE CAUSES TO ACCEPT MY COURT OF APPEAL. BUT THE DID NOT CONSIDER AT ALL. IT IS VERY SORRY FOR ME (SEE EXTRA PAGE PLEASE).” [sic]

7.  In the extra page, the applicant wrote:

“SO NOW I HAVE NO WAY TO GO EXCEPT THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL. I WILL WRITE ALL MY GROUNDS TO THEM AND I WILL GOT THE BEST RESULT FROM THERE”. [sic]

8.  In compliance with the directions given by Master Au-Yeung on 6 November 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 19 November 2019.  In the written submissions, he simply repeated his personal background and his claim that if he was to return to his home country, he would be killed by the police.

9.  We have duly considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we did not find any exceptional circumstance in this application to deviate from the usual practice and thus proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

10.  In our view, this application has no merits.

11.  The applicant alleged in the Notice of Motion that the court did not consider the grounds advanced in his written submissions.  This is misconceived and without basis.  The court had considered all the grounds in his written submissions and rejected them with the reasons set out at [20] - [24] of the Judgment.  In this application, the applicant merely repeated his rejected grounds in the Notice of Motion and written submissions without identifying any errors in the Judgment.  These are not viable grounds of appeal.

12.  In any event, the applicant has not identified in his Notice of Motion or written submissions any questions of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.

13.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are therefore not satisfied.  Accordingly, we refuse grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.