Re Hossen Kazi Mahabub

CACV 285/2018

[2018] HKCA 906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 285 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1111 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Poon and L Chan JJ in Court

Date of Judgment: 29 November 2018

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By our judgment dated 29 October 2018 (published as [2018] HKCA 764), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 22 June 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 1324) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.In his notice of motion filed on 1 November 2018, the applicant gave these grounds for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal:

“I would like to inform Court There is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and previous facts which were favor on COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence toward minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approched unlikely fairly access the danger of my claim in my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims.” (sic)

3.His written submissions lodged on 15 November 2018 stated that his life was in danger in his home country with a factual narrative of his case which repeats the facts of his claim before the Director and the Board, which were considered by the judge and this court.

4.In accordance with the general practice stipulated under paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we find it proper to deal with and determine this application on papers without an oral hearing.

5.It is plain that the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submission are case‑specific, without involving any question of great general or public importance.  They do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

6.As indicated in our judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that he failed to put forth any effective argument that could reverse the judge’s decision.  In this application, the applicant failed to demonstrate we were wrong in that regard.  In our view, nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s written submissions can merit submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.

7.There is no basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.

8.Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The applicant acting in person.