Re Razu Nazmul Hasan

CACV 365/2018

[2019] HKCA 372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 365 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 719 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 20 December 2018 (published as [2018] HKCA 992), this Court (Lam VP, Fung and L Chan JJ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 31 July 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 1725) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 21 December 2018, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.

3.It was stated in his notice of motion that the decision makers relied on country of origin information (“COI”), but the actual life situation was different.  It also said that the decision makers and the courts had ignored overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities, and had demonstrated a biased approach that did not take into account the danger to the applicant’s life.

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 4 January 2019.  In it, the applicant stated that his life was in danger in his home country and then gave a factual narrative of his case.  His account in this regard had been advanced before the Director and the Board.  Those matters had been duly considered by the judge and this court.  The applicant also attached to his written submissions a one-page document that was written neither in English nor in Chinese.

5.As indicated in the judgment of 20 December 2018, the Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that he failed to put forth any viable ground to reverse the judge’s decision.  In this application, the applicant failed to address the Court’s reasons for so holding, let alone demonstrating the Court was wrong in that regard.  In our view, nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s written submissions can merit submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.

6.The applicant did not raise any question of great general or public importance.  There is no basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

7.Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The applicant acting in person