Re Matloob Hassam

CACV 297/2018

[2019] HKCA 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 297 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 944/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 18 October 2018, this court (Yeung VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 22 June 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 29 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he did not understand most of the content of the order because it was in English.  He requests a translation of the order.  Further, it is unreasonable to expect that the applicant had gotten help throughout the case. He also does not understand why he did not receive legal representation for his BOR2 claim when other claimants had received the same.

4.Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 31 October 2018, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.  The applicant failed to specify the order he could not understand. We further note that he was able to formulate coherent submissions in the Notice of Motion.  There is nothing to suggest that the applicant faced any substantial hardship in the preparation of his appeal to this court.  As for the issue regarding legal representation for his claim base on BOR2 risk, we have dealt with the same in [9-11] of our judgment.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 29 October 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person