RE IQBAL MOHAMMAD ASIF

CACV 445/2018

[2019] HKCA 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1144 of 2017)

___________________________

___________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 4 February 2019, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) given on 5 September 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 11 February 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission to support his application. 

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the papers before us.

4.  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.

5.  The Notice of Motion stated:

“I am not satisfied with the decision because my life is not safe in my own country. I may killed or tortured if I return to my country. Please help me to stay in Hong Kong until I have problem. I will be grateful to you.”

6.  In his written submission, the applicant said he had problem with powerful people in his country and they are still looking for him.  He reiterated his fear of being killed or tortured if he were to return to his country.  He further claimed that his enemies had bribed the police and would be permitted to do any illegal thing.

7.  What was put forward in the Notice of Motion and the written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They all relate to the applicant’s personal circumstances, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  They are further unarguable in light of the Board’s rejection of the applicant’s case as being not credible.      

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

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.