RE ANWAR HOSSAIN

CACV 333/2019

[2020] HKCA 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 537 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 22 November 2019, this Court (Cheung JA 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 15 July 2019 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 2 December 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

1.4.     The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he would face a real risk of torture upon being refouled, that there was a failure to consider his claim under BOR 3 and BOR 2, and that there was a failure to consider his country of origin information.

1.5.     In the applicant’s written submission, he submitted that the Board and the Director failed in their duties to make sufficient inquiries into country of origin information and cited the case of Prabakar.  The applicant then complained that the Board and the Director failed to take into account of his death threats, failed to pay heed to his true story and his fears.  The applicant then complained that there was no consideration by the Judge to his BOR 3 and BOR 2 issues.

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 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 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 and written submissions.

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 2 December 2019 is dismissed.