Al Momin Chowdhury v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 446/2018

[2019] HKCA 213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 446 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1061 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.By a judgment dated 9 January 2019 ([2019] HKCA 24), this Court (Hon Yeung Acting CJHC and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 31 August 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Director dated 9 September 2016 and 21 June 2017 and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 7 December 2017.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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

3.By a notice of motion dated 14 January 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

(i)  failing to consider the concept of extended state acquiescence;

(ii)  failing to consider his claim in a holistic manner; and

(iii)  failing to consider the psychological harm suffered by him as a result of the ill treatments as stated in his non-refoulement claim form.  The judges’ decisions wrongly supported the decisions of the Director and the Board.

5.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 15 January 2019, the applicant lodged his written submission on 28 January 2019.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the factual background of his case and his complaint and disagreement against the decisions made by the Director and the Board. 

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.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.  Here, the applicant just repeated his grounds of appeal as advanced before the Judge which were duly and correctly rejected.  The applicant did not have reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings. 

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 9 January 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submission involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

9.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person