Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 598/2018

[2019] HKCA 1159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 598 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 992/2017)

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

RE:

MUSED SHEKH

Applicant

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

Before:

Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

25 October 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 27 June 2019, this court (Barma and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 14 December 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

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

“There is some error in law in my decision. Because I gave many supporting document…regarding my refoulement case but disregard all my document at all and never gave me any oral hearing for my judicial review application too. Therefore I am not feel gratification in this decision and its seem like neglected all my request and my document too still I have life problem for me in my country if I go my life become uncertain and danger”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 11 July 2019. In the written submission, the applicant attached some documents to show that he was hospitalized and that the political situation in Bangladesh is unfavourable to him.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.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 in the Notice of Motion and written submission.

7.As we have held at [18] of our judgment, the applicant needs to identify some public law error in the Board’s decision. The grounds in the Notice of Motion and the documents attached to his submission do not identify any public law error. As for the lack of hearings for the leave application and the appeal before this court, this was caused by the manner in which the applicant conducted the proceedings ([11] and [17] of our judgment). In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 2 July 2019 is dismissed.