RE CHOWDHURY MD IMTIAZ AHMED

CACV 2/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 2 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 126 of 2016)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 31 March 2017, we handed down our judgment dismissing the appeal by the Applicant.

2.  By a Notice of Motion of 10 April 2017, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice, the Applicant stated as follows:

“ I would to request that consider delay, since me & my wife don’t known the court law in hk, we (me & my wife) don’t know how to apply the court and it is very expensive to hire lawyer which I have no money to do that. now I know I can apply judicial review depend myself. Please kindly consider my situation, I am not delaying apply court intentionally. I have criminal record illegal work that time I don’t have money survive life eating and living in hk, im sorry all my mistake before married, me and my wife live together all most 7 years, I married her 6.5 years, I respectfully follow hk rule regulation, pleases consider me humanities. i can have fair judgment for from court.”

3.  The relevant criteria for granting such leave are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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 Court [of Final Appeal] for decision.”

4.  Directions were received by the Applicant on 20 April 2017 by which he acknowledged that he needed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1, in particular paragraph 3 of the same. 

5.  Subsequently, the Applicant lodged with the Court a bundle on 24 April 2017.  Item 1 in the bundle was described in the index as “Appal (sic) Ground”.  In that document, he stated:

“ I would like to respectfully request that consider my leave application delay on court with humanitarian ground. I Don’t known court law in hk. Me and wife don’t know how to apply court its is very expensive to hire lawyer which I have no money to do that. now I know I can apply judicial review dependent myself. pls kindly consider my situation. i am not delaying apply court intentionally,

Director of immigration refuse my application record is not clear, I believe hk law is fair for every person, I know many of my country friend, same condition as me record is not clear refugee statues illegal work director of immigration consider their dependent visa application and allow dependent visa to live with their wife and family,

I am refugee in hk, I have political problem in my country, I can’t go back my country, my life is danger over their, when I come hk all my money finish, no money to survive life food and other, I am illegally work, I am very very sorry all my mistake, its happened before my married, after married my wife take care me, I am respectfully follow in hk low,

We married almost 7 years, we live together, I want to live with my wife, I have request to honourable justice consider to me humanities ground.”

6.  In his documents, the Applicant did not set out any questions of great, general or public importance for submission to the Court of Final Appeal in the Notice.

7.  On 8 May 2017, the Court granted the Applicant extension of time until 26 June 2017 to lodge proper grounds of appeal to support his application.  The Court also indicated that upon expiry of that extension, the Court will process the application based on whatever materials before the Court. 

8.  On 23 June 2017 the Applicant wrote to the Court requesting the application be considered on the basis of an attachment.  The attachment was a letter from his former solicitors of 30 December 2016 advising him on the merits of his case. 

9.  We have seen the letter before as it had been produced by the Applicant in the appeal bundle.  The letter explained the legal position to the Applicant, including the implications flowing from BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520.  The letter also alluded to the lack of prospect of success though it suggested the Applicant to argue that the Director did not take humanitarian considerations into account.

10.  We have explained in our judgment at [8] to [13] the Applicant could not succeed on the humanitarian ground.  It was a decision on the facts and circumstances of the Applicant.  No question of great, general or public importance is involved.

11.  Nor can we see any basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb. 

12.  For these reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to grant leave to the Applicant and we dismiss the Notice of Motion accordingly.