|
CACV 127/2019
[2019] HKCA 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 127 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 213 OF 2018)
___________________________
| RE: |
ALOM SARDER |
Applicant |
___________________________
Before: Hon Barma JA, Au JA and Bharwaney J in Court
Date of Judgment: 18 December 2019
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Bharwaney J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 17 June 2019, this court (Barma JA and Bharwaney J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 6 March 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 24 June 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“with respect I let you inform that I couldn’t accept the decision made on 17 June 2019 by judge, because to make this decision there are some incorrect information which are used by the court. Decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. The judge didn’t scrutiny the previous and present facts. The judge didn’t verify all the matters which I give to the court in previous time. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. This decision was unfair and reflected my claims.”
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 8 July 2019. In the written submission, the applicant submitted that the judge did not apply the principle of irrationality, principle of procedural unfairness and high standard of fairness in scrutinizing the Board’s decision and the decisions by the Director. The judge did not analyse the claims about the situation in his home country. The judge’s decision was unreasonable. He asked for more time so that he can submit more documents to support his claim.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the Notice of Motion and written submission.
6. The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in the Notice of Motion and written submission.
7. The applicant referred to a number of legal principles in his Notice of Motion and submission. However, he did not give any particulars or identify the sections of judgment with which he is dissatisfied. In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
8. The applicant did not identify the documents he wanted to submit and their relevance. We would therefore refuse the application for extension of time.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 24 June 2019 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Mohan Bharwaney)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|