RE NESIM

CACV 410/2018

[2019] HKCA 631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 957/2017)

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 31 January 2019, 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 10 August 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 12 February 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that

“I am very sorry because I submit my documents in Bengali language so my judge cannot understood. So I will translate those paper in English and submit very soon. I do not know about skeleton to prepare. So I did not submit that is my weakness. I request my Lord will give me another chance to my oral hearing and submit all my grounds then you would take proper decision.”

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 12 March 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant identified a number of errors allegedly committed by the Board and the Director.

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.

7.  The applicant failed to identify any error in our judgment dated 31 January 2019.  There is no viable ground of appeal in any of the documents he submitted.

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 February 2019 is dismissed.