Re Hossain Shahbaz

CACV 180/2018

[2018] HKCA 1008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 180 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 948/2017)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 17 September 2018, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 18 May 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review, see [2018] HKCA 601.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 2 October 2018, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 16 October 2018.  He submitted that:

(a)  He could not provide a full picture of the grounds of appeal because of the lack of language assistance;

(b)  There was procedural unfairness as no one had assessed the psychological impact of which he complained; and

(c)  The country of origin information had not been considered thoroughly and neutrally.

4.By the unless order of 20 July 2018, the applicant had been given one month’s time to lodge skeleton submissions for his appeal to this Court. Upon non-compliance with the order, the hearing date was vacated and the judgment of this Court was handed down on 17 September 2018. After the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant managed to file a notice of motion promptly on 2 October 2018 and his skeleton submission was lodged within time on 16 October 2018. We do not accept the applicant did not have sufficient opportunity to prepare and lodge his submission for the substantive appeal. 

5.Hitherto, the applicant has never raised any complaint of his inability to understand either the proceedings before the Director of Immigration or the Torture Claims Appeal Board.  An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not the occasion for raising new allegations of this nature: see Re Moung Khing Rakhing [2018] HKCA 605.

6.None of the grounds relied upon by the applicant in this application constitute valid grounds of appeal against our judgment which addressed only the grounds of appeal before us as set out in the notice of appeal. In our judgment, no question of great, general, or public importance is raised and there is no basis for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb. 

7.Accordingly, we are not satisfied that the statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are met. 

8.For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 2 October 2018.

The applicant acting in person