RE HUSSAIN MANSOOR

CAMP 39/2019

[2019] HKCA 1218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 39 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 784 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 15 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 861), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 3 August 2018 in HCAL 784/2017 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 23 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal there is some errors in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on col information and my pervious facts which were favour on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned col information. Officer and court prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claim.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 September 2019 in which he advanced the following grounds:

(1)  It was unfair that the Court of Appeal did not hear his case.

(2)  There was a lack of legal representation and language assistance for his claim on BOR 2 risk for which he should be entitled in order to attain the high standard of fairness as laid down by case authorities.  The lack of language assistance still exists up to date.

(3)  Due to the lack of interpretation service, he did not understand the decisions made by the Director of Immigration on BOR 2 risk and the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

(4)  All the authorities have been highly discriminatory and unfair to him. 

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.  Here, the applicant merely regurgitated his arguments on the lack of language and legal assistance which were canvassed and duly rejected by us in [16] of our judgment.  The rest of his complaints were vague and general and would not be accepted as valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 15 August 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.