Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 139/2018

[2018] HKCA 902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 139OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 913/2017)

________________________

RE:

RAHMAN MOHAMMAD MIZANUR

Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 30 November 2018

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.By our judgment dated 2 August 2018 ([2018] HKCA 457), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 27 April 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 882) refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In his notice of motion dated 31 August 2018, the applicant stated the following ground for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal:

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

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 13 September 2018. In the written submissions, the applicant merely reiterated the factual background of his case and submitted that he had genuine fear that his life would be in danger if refouled.

5.Having considered the materials before us, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice to process leave applications on the papers without an oral hearing.

6.The applicant’s appeal was rejected because he failed to show that the judge or the board had made any error which warranted a reversal of the judge’s decision. In our view, the notice of motion failed to set out any valid ground to challenge our decision. The intended appeal is not reasonably arguable.

7.The applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine. Nor is there any basis for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb. Thus, the applicant’s application does not satisfy the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.For these reasons, we refuse to the grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The notice of motion is dismissed accordingly.