Mamun or Rashid v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another

CACV 401/2018

[2019] HKCA 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 401 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1014 OF 2017)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 25 January 2019 ([2019] HKCA 61) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 3 August 2018 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 13 February 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 27 February 2019.

3.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:

“I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL information. The Officer and [courts] prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.In the applicant’s written submissions, the applicant stressed that high standards of fairness and reasonableness are required in the determination of his right to non-refoulement protection because the decision has a significant effect on his non‑refoulement claim.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 14 February 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.The applicant’s grounds are broad and vague and are without particulars. 

8.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

11.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 13 February 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person