|
CACV 349/2020
[2021] HKCA 765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1481 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
JONY HOSSAIN |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Yeung VP, Chu JA and B Chu J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
7 June 2021 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
Introduction
1. By a judgment dated 1 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 199), this Court (Yeung VP and B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 28 July 2020 in HCAL 1481/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 19 July 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 26 January 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. By a Notice of Motion dated 11 March 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:
“The High Court Judge refused my claim for leave to apply for judicial review. The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of TCAB did not bleave (sic) my claim. Now I have no way to return to home. For justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
3. Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 17 March 2021, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 25 March 2021. He failed to do so.
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 the papers without an oral hearing.
5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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. Here, the applicant failed to pinpoint any error of law or raised any discernible grounds to reverse our judgment and his intended appeal is bound to fail. We take the view that the applicant’s case has no merit and nothing set out in the Notice of Motion can be construed as valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7. For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 1 March 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order. None of the matters raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion 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.
8. Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.
| (W Yeung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Bebe Chu) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|