RE HOSSAIN ABUL

CACV 175/2020

[2021] HKCA 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1417 OF 2018)

_______________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1.  On 20 November 2020, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 2 June 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘decision of the Judge’).

1.2.  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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 3 December 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that our judgment had ‘some incorrect informations’.  He stated that we did not verify all the matters and relied on hearsay evidence.  He stated that he felt his life is threatened.

1.5.  The notice of motion annexed six grounds of application which can be summarized as :

(1)  Non application of the principle of irrationality;

(2)  The Judge viewed his matter lightly without regard to high standards of fairness;

(3)  The decision on refoulement has significant effect on his torture claim;

(4)  He has severe problem in his home country;

(5)  The decision was unreasonable; and

(6)  There was no procedural fairness.  The Director and the Board were required to give reasons for their decisions.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  They lacked particulars and the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.

3.2.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 3 December 2020 is dismissed.