Re Main Uddin

CACV370 /2018

[2019] HKCA 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 370 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 60/2017)

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 20 December 2018, this court (Yeung Acting CJHC, Barma JA and McWalters JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 24 July 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 20 December 2018 but filed on 27 December 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that his safety and that of his family will be threatened if he is refouled.  He also said that he was unable to submit any supporting documents.

4.On 10 January 2019, the applicant lodged a number of documents, running to some 56 pages as purported written submission.  These documents were apparently prepared for the applicant’s claim before the Board and the Director.  On 11 January 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the documents lodged on 10 January 2019 should not be considered by the Court of Appeal and that unless the applicant lodged and served written submissions of no more than 10 pages before 29 January 2019, he would be deemed to be relying only on the Notice of Motion in this application.  The applicant failed to provide any written submissions before 29 January 2019.

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

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

7.For the ground based on the alleged threat to him and his family, we have dealt with this ground at [14] of our judgment.  As for the ground based on the inability to submit documents, the applicant has failed to identify those documents.  This ground is plainly not reasonably arguable.

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 filed on 27 December 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person