RE UDDIN M NEZAM

CACV 177/2023, [2024] HKCA 99

On Appeal from [2023] HKCA 1284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 177 OF 2023

(On appeal from HCAL 1243/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.  Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 1 December 2023 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against the judgment dated 15 November 2023[1] of this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  (“Judgment”).  By the Judgment, this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 13 June 2023[2]by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 7 September 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.  Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper on the basis of the written materials filed with the court without an oral hearing.  We agree that paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”)  or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to the CFA

4.  In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion that (sic):

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COI information any my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.

4. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

6.  I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country.  I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.”

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1 and the specific direction given on 15 December 2023 by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has lodged written submission on 28 December 2023.  It is worthy of note that the content of such written submission is materially identical to that of the skeleton submission filed on 29 August 2023, as summarised and dealt with in [16], [17] and [22] of the Judgment.

Discussion and disposition

6.  We have given detailed reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of leave for judicial review.  See [18]-[26] of the Judgment.  The applicant has made no attempt to engage any of our reasons.

7.  The applicant has plainly not identified any specific error in the Judgment that raises any, or any arguable, issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

8.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b)  for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.