RE ASID IQBAL

CACV 480/2018

[2019] HKCA 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 480 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 28/2018)

_______________________

_______________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By our judgment dated 10 January 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 28), this Court (Lam VP and B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 14 September 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 2048) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  In his notice of motion filed on 22 January 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds of the lack of language assistance and the lack of legal representation.  He also complained that the Board should not make an adverse finding on his credibility, where the Director of Immigration had not done so. He also stated that this Court failed to address his submission that the “authorities should provide necessary assistance” to him.

3.  Notwithstanding that he was directed to do so, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of this application.

4.  This Court has explained in [19] – [21] of the judgment why the grounds relating to the lack of language assistance and the lack of legal representation were not reasonably arguable.  Particularly, it was pointed out in [20] that the high standards of fairness did not demand interpretation service being made available at all times to a non-refoulement claimant.  In this application, the applicant failed to engage with the reasons given for rejecting these grounds.

5.  The applicant has never hitherto challenged the Board’s authority in making adverse finding on his credibility.  Nor do we see any reasonably arguable ground for him to do so on appeal.

6.  In any event, the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  There is no reason for us to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

7.  Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.