Re Litoun Mounsy (also known as Akmal Ali and also known as Shamen Hosain)

CACV 212/2018

[2018] HKCA 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 212 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1112/2017)

_____________________________

_____________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 21 August 2018, this Court handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 537) dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

2.The applicant filed a notice of motion dated 17 September 2018 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The notice of motion was amended on 21 September 2018.

3.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

4.In the amended notice of motion, the applicant said for the first time that the reason why he used another identity to leave Bangladesh was because his enemy’s relative worked in the Bangladeshi Immigration Department.  He also stated for the first time that his enemy filed false murder charges against him in 2012-2013 and attacked his father and other family members in April 2018.  The applicant did not explain why the matters were not raised before the judge at the oral hearing on 23 May 2018 or at the appeal before us.

5.On 2 October 2018, the applicant lodged his skeleton submission.  In it, the applicant repeated the factual background of his case.

6.Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not the occasion for new factual matters to be canvassed. If the applicant has a valid basis to raise a fresh non-refoulement claim, he should do so in accordance with Section 37ZO(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, see also Ram Chander v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 585. 

7.As for the appeal itself, the applicant does not raise any questions of great general or public importance in respect of our judgment.  Accordingly, the statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Cap 484) are not met.

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 amended notice of motion dated 21 September 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person