RE SHARIFUL ISLAM

CACV 423/2019

[2020] HKCA 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 423 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 374/2018)

____________________

____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 5 June 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Lam VP and Barma JA) judgment of 28 May 2020.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  The Applicant has set out the following matters in his Notice of Motion as ground for seeking leave to appeal:

“ 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 overwhelming 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.” [sic]

4.  These were bald assertions which lack particulars and do not identify any error in this Court’s judgment of 28 May 2020.  As such, the Notice of Motion does not raise any reasonably arguable grounds to support leave to appeal to be granted.

5.  On 19 June 2020 the Applicant lodged his written submissions. In those submissions, instead of engaging with the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal by this Court, he advanced some assertions regarding the conditions in Bangladesh, some of which were relayed to him by his mother.

6.  An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not the platform for fresh evidence to be adduced.  If the Applicant has new materials to support his claim showing significant change of circumstances since the determination of his previous application, he could consider making a subsequent claim under Sections 37ZO and 37ZP of the Immigration Ordinance.

7.  The Applicant’s submissions do not raise any reasonably arguable ground capable of supporting leave to appeal to the CFA being granted.

8.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that any are questions of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

9.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.