Re Sumon

CACV 144/2019

[2019] HKCA 1095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1592 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 19 August 2019, this Court (Chu JA and Wong J) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung (“the Judge”) given on 13 March 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 26 August 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion and written submission.

4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

5.The Notice of Motion stated that: (i) there is some error in the decision; (ii) the decision maker relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and facts that favoured the rejection of his claim when the real situation was different; (iii) the officers and the court ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities; and (iv) the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach that did not fairly assess the danger to the applicant’s life and was clearly not reasonable.  

6.The written submission is the same as the written submission put forward in support of his appeal before this court (see [9] of our judgment).

7.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion and the written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.Firstly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  What is stated in the Notice of Motion and written submission relates only to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  Secondly, the complaint about COI is a new point not argued before the Judge or in the appeal before this Court. It is not open to the applicant to raise it at this late stage.  Thirdly, as pointed out in our judgment at [14], the written submission has no appreciable relevance to the applicant’s claim.    

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.