RE ISLAM MOHAMMED SERAZUL

CACV 222/2018

[2018] HKCA 975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 222 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 525/2017)

______________________________

______________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 28 August 2018, this Court handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 563) dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 6 September 2018, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

“ 1. 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.

2. 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.”

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 21 September 2018.  In it, the applicant gave the following particulars for the grounds of appeal:

“ 7. With respect to Judge and the Court of Appeal, I submit that this decision is wrong. Since the Director of Immigration’s Notice of Decision, I was refused Legal Aid and have not been able to afford proper legal representation. In addition, I have not had consistent help with understanding legal documents or correspondence in English or translation into my own language. The help I have received has been inadequate or limited. I have not easily been able to find information that I could understand in the non-refoulement case process or the progress of my own claim. Getting translations has been difficult and often means I am late in my responses. Since the advice I must rely on is not always from professionals it can be conflicting and confusing. This is in itself procedural unfairness and was my first ground of appeal.

8. The Court went on to say that Judge found no errors of law in the Board’s decision, particularly citing that they fully analysed the Country of Origin information.  However, my point was that they drew only inferences negative to my case from the information and the net could and should have been cast wider in looking for relevant Country of Origin information.  In other words, it was not a balanced view of the information.”

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.  It is plain that the grounds stated in the notice of motion and the skeleton submissions are case-specific matters. No question of great general or public importance is involved.  Accordingly, the statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Cap 484) are not met.

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 6 September 2018 is dismissed.