RE MOJUMDER SONJOY

CACV 235/2018

[2018] HKCA 925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 235 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 771/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 24 September 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 5 June 2018 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 27 September 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that it is not safe for him to go back to Bangladesh.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 8 October 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.

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 his notice of motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and his written submission.  The applicant’s claim that it is unsafe for him to return is not of itself a ground for seeking leave to appeal.  We further note that the Board had found the applicant to be an incredible witness.  We concluded at [16] of our judgment that the applicant was unable to identify any error committed by the Board in arriving at this conclusion.

7.  In our view, this complaint is plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 27 September 2018 is dismissed.