Re Hassan Mahedi

CACV 214/2019

[2019] HKCA 1163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 214 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 931 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 30 August 2019, this court (Hon Au JA, G Lam and Lisa Wong JJ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal (see [2019] HKCA 994: “the Judgment”) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 30 April 2019, refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by Notice of Motion dated 3 September 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“ Dear Sir/Madam,

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

3.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 16 September 2019.  We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.

4.In his written submission, the applicant repeated the authorities cited in the skeleton submissions dated 5 July 2019 before this court, which we had dealt with at [20]‑[21] of the Judgement.

5.In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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.  We had dealt with the issue of country of origin assessment at [15] of the Judgement.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in our judgment.  There is no reasonably arguable issue for decision by the Court of Final Appeal.

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

7.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Written submission by the applicant, acting in person