RE HASAN MD MEHEDI

CACV 522/2018

[2019] HKCA 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 302 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 22 February 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal (‘judgment’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 5 October 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2   The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of 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 5 March 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

1.4   The applicant stated in his notice of motion that our judgment had an error in law in failing to take account of the applicant’s psychological strain.  There was procedural impropriety for failure to consider extended state acquiescence.  There was irrationality in our assessment of BOR 3.  There was an error in law on assessment of country of origin information.  There was an error in law in not explaining why the applicant will not be subject to torture upon refoulement.

1.5   The applicant lodged his written submission on 19 March 2019.  Amongst other things, and in summary, he repeated the factual and procedural background information.  The matters stated are elaborations of the points the applicant mentioned in his notice of motion.

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 and written submissions 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 notice of motion or written submissions.

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 5 March 2019 is dismissed.