RE MOHAMMED SAYEED

CACV 232/2018

[2019] HKCA 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 232 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1011/2017)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 31 October 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 8 June 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 2 November 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that his appeal should not have been dismissed merely because the grounds of appeal were not directed at the judge.  The judges hearing the appeal could have clarified the issue with him because English is not his first language.  It is difficult for him to comply with the court’s directions and to set out technical grounds.  The appeal process was unfair.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application dated 14 November 2018 but received by this court on 19 November 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in his 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 submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and his written submission.  The requirement to specify the errors committed by the judge below can be found in Rules of High Court, Order 59 rule 3(2).  Further, the applicant has not identified any matter which could have been clarified in the appeal hearing on 24 October 2018, and this ground is plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 2 November 2018 is dismissed.