RE ISLAM MAHIDUL

CACV 441/2020

[2021] HKCA 1343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2082 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 23 April 2021, this Court (Cheung JA, G Lam J (as he then was)  and S T Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 11 August 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 29 April 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that :

‘ I would like to infomr 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 claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

4.  The applicant also lodged his written submissions on 24 May 2021.  He first gave factual information about his case. He then stated various non-refoulement legal principles and relevant statutory provision without detailing how those provisions related to the particular circumstances of his case.

II.  Legal principles

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘the Ordinance’)  (Cap. 484)  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.

III.  Our view

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

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

IV.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 29 April 2021 is dismissed.