Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 85/2018

[2018] HKCA 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 403 of 2017)

________________________

RE

KARIM MD REJAUL

Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 28 September 2018

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 13 August 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 23 March 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 20 August 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 23 August 2018, the applicant has not put in any written submission to support his application.

4.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.

5.The Notice of Motion repeated the facts of his claim and further stated that: (1) the applicant’s life would be in danger if he were to return to his home country because supporters of the Awami League would harm or kill him, (2) the torture of the members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was continuing, and (3) the Immigration Department only obtained the country of origin information from the Internet and did not know about the corruption in his home country. The applicant also asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until it is safe to return home.

6.The matters set out in the Notice of Motion are case-specific and relate only to the personal circumstances of the applicant. They do not involve any question of great, general or public importance. Further, they are repetitions of the applicant’s case and submissions presented to the Board, the Deputy Judge and this Court. For reasons set out in our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.

7.There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.In the circumstances, the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.