RE KHAN LITON

CACV 411/2021

[2022] HKCA 1403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 411 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2789 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court handed down judgment on 24 December 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1918)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 3 August 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 3 January 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The Notice of Motion contains the following grounds of appeal:

“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal I am strongly opposed the decision maker authorities and Court as well. There is some error in my law maker just relied on web source and CoI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Its toward to my life still in danger in my home land in Bangladesh.”

5.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 17 January 2022. This Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing, which we consider appropriate.

6.  In his written submissions, he advanced the following grounds for his intended appeal:

(1)  He disagreed with the decisions made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  and his case has been determined unfairly.

(2)  The judges in the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not failed to appreciate the significance of his non-refoulement claim.  There was a lack of assistance provided to him which was an error of law or procedural unfairness and a failure to adhere to high standards of fairness.  His case should be assessed with caution and his vulnerability and disadvantage should be taken into account.

(3)  There was a lack of language assistance and there was procedural unfairness.  Hence, his case should be reconsidered.

(4)  He was not provided with reasonable assistance in understanding the judgment and thus the Judge could not dismiss his case for not advancing any ground of appeal.  

7.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  Having regard to [12] – [13] of the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  

9.  Nor do we see any basis for leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 3 January 2022 is dismissed.