RE AKBAR MD FAISHAL

CAMP 62/2018

[2018] HKCA 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 62 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 335 of 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 6 September 2018, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 29 March 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 2 October 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals communicated to him by letter dated 8 October 2018, the applicant has not lodged any written submission by 16 October 2018.

3.  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.

4.  The Notice of Motion did not set out any proposed question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  It merely stated that: (1) there is error in law in the decision; (2) the decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and previous facts when the actual situation was different from what was mentioned in the COI; (3) officers and courts had ignored overwhelming evidence of violence committed on the minorities; and (4) the decision betrayed bias and formulaic approach without fairly assessing the danger to the applicant’s life.

5.  None of the matters advanced in the Notice of Motion involves a question of law, let alone one that has great general or public importance. 

6.  Further, the matters put forward in the Notice of Motion are unarguable.  Regarding the complaints on COI, they are entirely irrelevant.  As pointed out in [15] of the Judgment, the Board did not have to, and it did not rely on, any COI.  As to the complaints of error of law and bias, they are mere assertions with no particulars. 

7.  There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

8.  As the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.