Re Md Sumon

CACV 241/2018

[2019] HKCA 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 241 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1132 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Yuen and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 28 January 2019

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 12 November 2018, this Court handed down our judgment[1] (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 5 June 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submission to support his application.

4.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The Notice of Motion stated that the decision maker relied on country of origin information, but did not take into account “previous facts” when the actual life situation was different.  It also said that the decision makers and the courts had ignored overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities, and had demonstrated a biased approach that did not take into account the danger to the applicant’s life.

7.What was stated in the Notice of Motion does 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, as required by section 22(1)(b).  The matters raised in the notice of motion only relate to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  We have in [13] of our judgment considered the applicant’s complaint about the Board’s reliance on country of origin information, and concluded it was unarguable.     

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

9.For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.