|
CACV 170/2019
[2020] HKCA 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 170 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 382/2018)
_____________________
BETWEEN
| |
MIZANUR RAHMAN |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________________
Before: Hon Yuen JA, Yau and S T Poon JJ in Court
Date of Judgment: 14 January 2020
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 6 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 872) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 4 April 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
2. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 12 August 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 26 August 2019.
3. Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 14 August 2019, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.
4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [COI] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [COI] Information. The Officer and [courts] prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” (sic)
5. The written submissions mainly repeated the arguments in the skeleton submissions filed on 13 June 2019 in support of the applicant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 9 April 2019. The grounds and arguments of the applicant had already been dealt with by this court in paragraphs 13 – 14 of our judgment.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.
8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
10. On 16 December 2019, the applicant sent to this court a letter indicating that he wants to “cancel” his case as he wants to go back to his home country now.
11. As we have considered the merits of the applicant’s application, we find it appropriate to hand down this judgment notwithstanding the applicant’s said indication.
12. The Notice of Motion dated 12 August 2019 is dismissed.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal |
(Joseph Yau)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person.
|