Re Md Iqbal

CACV 149/2019

[2019] HKCA 1180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 149 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 220/2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 August 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 912) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 March 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 592).

2.On 2 September 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against the said judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that:

“ The matters involved within this notice of motion are of significant public importance, and particularly with regard to the standard and approach within the assessment of evidence and credibility within non-refoulement claims.

Irrationality in the adjudicator’s failure to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation to speak against Islam religion and of human right in Bangladesh.

The Court of First Instance failed to discharge its duty to comprehensively consider the lawfulness or fairness of decision-making as its role in judicial review.

There are fundamental errors going to the heart of the appropriate determination of protection in Hong Kong, it is therefore of public importance such as to justify the consideration of the Court of [illegible].” (sic)

4.The applicant did not comply with the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals and Practice Direction 2.1 to lodge any written submissions in support of this application.

5.In the judgment of 16 August 2019, the Court had addressed the grounds of appeal of the applicant comprehensively.  The applicant simply failed to engage with the Court’s reasons in this application.  He did not provide any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the judgment.

6.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion are mostly general assertions without identifying their relevance on the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case.  In this connection, we reiterate what had been said at [15] to [18] of the judgment.

7.There is no question of great general or public importance in the present case that merits submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  The statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are not met.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under the section. 

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The Notice of Motion filed on 2 September 2019 is therefore dismissed.

The applicant acting in person