RE NUR HOSSAIN

CACV 469/2020

[2021] HKCA 1951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 469 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2114 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court (Hon Lam VP as he then was, Yuen JA and Lok J) handed down judgment on 15 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 848) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 24 August 2020 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.  On 14 September 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision. As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 15 June 2021, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 6 July 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to infomr (sic)  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 favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and courts (sic)  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.”

4.  Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 6 July 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 15 July 2021.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, we proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated that he was not satisfied with the decisions made by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board and therefore he sought leave to apply for judicial review from the Court of First Instance but his leave application was rejected.  His appeal against the Judge’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.  He complained that he could not get justice in the process of his claim and he wish to get justice from the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.  S. 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.  Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s. 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  

8.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under s. 22(1)(b).

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 6 July 2021 is dismissed.