RE ISLAM MD NAZRUL

CACV 525/2018

[2019] HKCA 599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 525 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 212 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon M Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By our judgment dated 4 March 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 245), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) given on 5 October 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 2136) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  In his notice of motion filed on 18 March 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant stated that:

“Hon M Poon J Judge ordered on 4 March 2019 is not correct. He not follow the Hong Kong Bill of Right Ordinance properly. I am not satisfy his order.”

3.  In his written submissions dated 16 April 2019, he repeated the background of his claim and the legal framework.  He reiterated that his claim was genuine, his life was in danger and it was not safe for him to be refouled back to Bangladesh.  He claimed that as he did not know English he was unable to understand the appeal bundle sent to him just 7 days prior to the hearing before the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  It was submitted that the Director of Immigration, the Adjudicator of the Board and the judges all failed to understand his problem.

4.  In accordance with the general practice stipulated under paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we find it proper to deal with and determine this application on papers without an oral hearing.

5.  As indicated in our judgment, the judge had reviewed the decision of the Board under “rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny” and had clearly given sufficient reasons after considering all the available material.

6.  We also made it clear that the applicant’s complaints directed at the Board’s decision had no bearing on the outcome of the appeal before us.  In fact, the grounds advanced by the applicant in this application was fully canvassed in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Form Call-1.

7.  In our view, nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s written submissions can merit submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.

8.  It is plain that the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  They do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. 

9.  There is no basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

10.  Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.