RE HOSSAIN MD SUMON

CAMP 178/2018

[2019] HKCA 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 178 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 551/2017)

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 1 April 2019, this court (Barma and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 7 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 application for extension of time, 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 16 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that

“I want to apply for Final Court of Appeal because the judgment is unreasonable”

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 29 April 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant gave an explanation for his delay in taking out the summons in CAMP 178/2018 against the judge’s decision.  This submission has no apparent relevance to the present application.

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 the Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in the 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 the Notice of Motion and written submission.  The ground in the Notice of Motion is vague and is not reasonably arguable in 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 16 April 2019 is dismissed.