Re Haider Sufyan

CACV 447/2018

[2019] HKCA 393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 447 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 122/2018)

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

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

Before: Hon Lam VP, Au JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 29 January 2019

Date of Judgment: 8 April 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By the judgment dated 10 January 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 26), this Court (Lam VP and B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 3 September 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 1994) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By his notice of motion filed on 15 January 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment by reiterating the ground that the lack of language assistance rendered the process unfair.

3.In his written submissions lodged on 29 January 2019, apart from repeating the complaint relating to the lack of language assistance, the applicant further reiterated the disparity of treatments among non-refoulement claimants by the Duty Lawyer Service in respect of the assessment of BOR 2 risk.

4.At [16] – [19] of the judgment, this Court explained why the Judge was correct in holding that the lack of language assistance and the lack of legal representation did not constitute valid grounds for judicial review.  This Court also explained that the alleged disparity of treatments was not reasonably arguable.  In this application, the applicant failed to demonstrate why this Court was wrong in those respects.

5.In any event, the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions do not involve any question of great general or public importance. Nor do we see any reason 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).

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

The applicant acting in person