Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 288/2018

[2019] HKCA 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 288OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 585/2017)

_________________

RE:

ASLAM MOHAMMAD

Applicant

_________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Poon JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 10 December 2018

Date of Judgment: 27 February 2019

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.By our judgment dated 19 November 2018 ([2018] HKCA 843), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 25 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1306) refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In his notice of motion dated 26 November 2018, the applicant stated the following ground for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal:

“ I would like to inform court. There is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly [calculate] to reject my claims.” (sic)

4.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 10 December 2018 in support of the motion. In it, the applicant reiterated the basis of fear and threat he previously received.

5.As explained in our judgment of 19 November 2018, the applicant had failed to advance any effective argument to challenge the judge’s analysis. The grounds set out in the notice of motion did not raise any reasonably arguable basis to challenge our judgment.

6.Having considered the materials before us, we cannot discern any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine. Nor is there any basis for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb. Thus, the applicant’s application does not satisfy the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The notice of motion is dismissed accordingly.