Re Rafiqul Islam

CACV 435/2018

[2019] HKCA 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 99 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 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 given on 24 August 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 27 December 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant repeated in his notice of motion that his life is in danger, and that he would be harmed or killed if repatriated.  He attached a seven-page document to his notice of motion, most of the contents are complaints against the Board.

1.5The applicant lodged his written submissions on 24 January 2019.  He repeated factual and procedural background information.  

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or written submissions.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 27 December 2018 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person