RE MOHAMMAD MEHNDI HASSAN

CACV 62/2019

[2019] HKCA 1149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 638 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 25 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 773), the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) dated 30 January 2019 in HCAL 638/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 6 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following ground:

“I appeal to the Honourable Judge to please look at my case again in your Honour’s Court. I would like to apologize that I did not submit my documents to the court properly as well as skeleton submissions. So I would like to submit these documents as soon as possible. I want to appeal in your Honour’s Court that I cannot go back in my Country (India) because my life is in DANGER in my Country. So I would like to kindly appeal your Honour’s Court to please accept my request and kindly allow me to stay in Hong Kong.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 7 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 19 August 2019.  There, the applicant cited some authorities and legal principles in relation to non-refoulement protection claim without referring to his own case.  He further reiterated his fear of going back to India as there were incidents of “mob lynching” with people being assaulted and even killed. The applicant claimed that he would face the same risk of harm if refouled.

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

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.  Here, the applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed by money lenders due to his failure to repay his personal loan.  The alleged dispute was private in nature.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board found no evidence of state instigation or acquiescence of any form and none of the applicant’s complaints were substantiated.  The Board’s findings were duly endorsed by the Judge and the applicant did not put forward any grounds of appeal or complaints to reverse the Judge’s decision before the Court of Appeal.  In the circumstances, what the applicant stated in the notion of motion and written submissions simply cannot stand.

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 25 July 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.