RE MAZHI MD MIJAN

CACV 421/2019

[2020] HKCA 759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1742 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 16 April 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 6 September 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2.  The facts and issues in the 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 11 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.4.  Doing the best we can to understand the applicant’s case, his notice of motion stated that it is not true that his claim has no substance.  He did not point out the poor performance of his duty lawyer because he feared that ‘he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator’.  He stated that he did not have enough time to address his hearing bundle.  In his supporting affirmation, he stated that the Judges were wrong in holding there was no state acquiescence.  There were no detailed findings of the current situation in his home country.  He then exhibited previous court documents.

1.5.  The applicant also provided a written submission which referred to factual backgrounds of what had happened in the previous hearings and citation of legal authorities that are used in non-refoulement cases.

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, affirmation and written submission 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 documents.

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 11 May 2020 is dismissed.