Re Ahammed Mamun

CACV 428/2018

[2019] HKCA 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 428 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 986/2017)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 10 December 2018, this court (Cheung and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 24 August 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 10 December 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform court there is some error is law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and occur different situation then mentioned COI Information. Officer and Court profess 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 assess the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject claims.”

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 24 December 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the incidents giving rise to his claim.  He also explained why he believes the Bangladeshi government will not protect him.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 and written submission.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submission 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 and his written submission.  

7.The applicant did not specifically challenge the evaluation of the COI Information by the Board in his application for leave for judicial review.  As we have held at [16] of our judgment, it is not now open to the applicant to rely on these grounds. 

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 December 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person