RE MIAH MOHAMMAD PAKHI

CACV 477/2018

[2019] HKCA 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 70 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 18 January 2019 ([2019] HKCA 17), this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 21 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Board dated 2 January 2018. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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.

3.  By a notice of motion dated 8 February 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“My life is still in danger on (in) my Country Bangladesh. Made by non-refoulement claim that if I was to be returned to Bangladesh, I would be harmed by/killed by the Member of Bangladesh Awami League (“AL”) because of my political affiliation to the rival political group Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islam Party (JIP).  Until my area very strong for AL, good relationship we’d located police, if I not join, AL member force entered my house.  They carrying bamboos sticks and try to would killed me (sic).”  

5.  The applicant further set out in his Notice of Motion about his disagreements and complaints against the decisions made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Judge respectively.

6.  Pursuant to the Order made by Master Au-Yeung on 8 February 2019, the applicant was directed to lodge written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion on or before 22 February 2019.  The applicant failed to lodge his written submissions as directed.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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.  Here, the grounds and complaints put forward by the applicant in the Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant merely regurgitated the arguments that he would face risk of harm if refouled to Bangladesh which was canvassed at the lower court hearing and duly rejected by the Judge. 

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 18 January 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.