RE SHB

CACV 397/2024, [2026] HKCA 561

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 77 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Decision of the Court):

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 27 January 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 13 September 2024 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 were set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here. Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

3.  The applicant applied, by a notice of motion filed on 6 February 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary:

1)    the applicant still has problems in his country for his family;

2)    the applicant needs enough time to obtain supporting document before an oral hearing; and

3)    if the applicant goes back now his life becomes uncertain because his enemies are very powerful and loyal to the ruling party, and connected with the police. They can harm the applicant.

4.  The applicant’s written submissions stated the following in summary:

1)    although the applicant submitted documents his claim was rejected by the Immigration Department;

2)    although the applicant explained to the Adjudicator and gave supporting document his claim was rejected by the Board;

3)    the applicant does not have documents now but still has a problem for his family. If he returns, life is uncertain and dangerous and it is difficult to get documents in his country;

4)    the applicant’s country president ran away to India. Military rule applies to Bangladesh now. Young people lost their lives killed by the government. He will try his best to get supporting documents;

5)  the applicant asks for an oral hearing to explain that his enemies are still looking for him and asking about him and that the police support them; and

6)  the applicant needs to save his life[1].

II.     Our view

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

6.   The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submission are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to, nor explain and elaborate on, the particular circumstances of the applicant.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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 Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

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

III.     Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 February 2025 is dismissed.