Re Sumon Miah

CAMP 106/2018

[2019] HKCA 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 106 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 915 OF 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

Before:  Hon Yeung Ag CJHC, Poon and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  14 January 2019

Date of Judgment:  8 March 2019

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 14 December 2018, this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 5 June 2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 8 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 31 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

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

(i)  There were errors of law in the decisions against him and the decision makers just relied on the Country of Origin Information (“COI”) and the factual information which were against him in order to reject his claim.  

(ii)  The actual life in Bangladesh was different from what was mentioned the COI and the Bangladeshi officers and courts preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. Thus, the decisions to reject his claim were biased, formulated and calculated.  

4.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 3 January 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 14 January 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant reiterated the factual background of his case as advanced before the Director and the Board and claimed that he would face risk of harm if he were refouled to his home country.

5.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.

6.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 reiterated his complaint and disagreement against the decisions made by the Director and the Board which were duly considered and correctly rejected by the Judge at the lower court hearing.  The applicant did not have reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings.

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgement of 14 December 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

8.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