|
CACV 455/2020
[2021] HKCA 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 455 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 830 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SHEIKH MD ROMJAN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Au JA and Coleman J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 10 May 2021
Date of Judgment: 15 June 2021
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 26 April 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Coleman J) judgment of 9 April 2021 (“the Judgment”) [2021] HKCA 485. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 3 September 2020, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
3. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:
“I Sheikh Md Romjan My life is still in Danger My home Country, I was returned to Bangladesh, harmed and must be killed by ex-wife’s family powerful members of Awami League (AL). I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claims. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL information. The Officer and course perfect 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 dangerous of my life and clearly not reasonable. Because until Awami League(AL) power party and carry the big post.”[sic]
5. He further stated that he was appealing against the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) and the courts because they failed to take into account many issues. He then repeated his personal background and his claim and asked this Court to grant him leave.
6. In his written submissions of 10 May 2021 filed pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant advanced several grounds on procedural impropriety/unfairness and irrationality against the Board[1]. The complaint against the Judgment was that he was unrepresented at the hearing and that the Court failed to discharge its duty to consider the fairness of the decision-making process[2]. He also argued that the Court wrongly rejected his application to adduce the new certificates[3]. Further, he submitted that the matters involved within this appeal are of significant public importance with regards to the standard and approach adopted in the assessment of evidence and credibility of non-refoulement claims[4].
7. In our view, the applicant’s application is totally without merit. The arguments in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are effectively those advanced before but rejected by us in the Judgment (see [13] and [21] - [23]). His application to adduce the new certificates was dealt with at [14] of the Judgment. He simply fails to pinpoint any specific errors in the Judgment.
8. Further, insofar as his argument on lack of legal representation is concerned, this is a new argument that was not advanced before the Court below and us, and thus will not be entertained: see Sorip Khan v Torture Claims Appeal Board & Anor [2019] HKCA 510 at [12]; Re Md Iqbal [2019] HKCA 912 at [13(3)]; Re Sudimah [2019] HKCA 1030 at [12(3)]; and Re Marshall Bill O
[2019] HKCA 1031 at [13(3)]. In any event, this court has emphasised repeatedly that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process: Re Zunariyah
[2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11]; Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11]; and Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37 at [13]. In addition, as mentioned in the Judgment, the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and credibility of non-refoument claim are well-settled and the task is within the province of the decision makers. The applicant’s claimed issue of public importance is therefore misplaced.
9. In the circumstances and in any event, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.
10. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.
| (Thomas Au) |
(Russell Coleman) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of |
| |
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
[1] Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the applicant’s written submissions.
[2] Paragraphs 27 and 30 of the applicant’s written submissions.
[3] Paragraph 15 of the applicant’s written submissions.
[4] Paragraph 7 of the applicant’s written submissions.
|