Re Alim Badsha

CACV 142/2019

[2019] HKCA 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 142 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1585 OF 2018)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.On 1 August 2019, this court handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 14 March 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision 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 9 August 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“ I am not satisfy about the order of the Court of Appeal. The honourable judges failed to show any good reason to dismissed my claim. In my application of judicial review and the Court of Appeal I write many error of law, but the honourable judges did not consider my application. I want to go to Court of Final Appeal.” [sic]

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 12 September 2019. In that submission, the applicant repeated his three sources of fear.  He stated that relocation in Bangladesh is impossible for him because the parties that he fears would find him.  He claimed that the Board was not neutral and did not give him enough time for preparation.  He also said that the lawyer who represented him before the Director of Immigration did not help 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 paper.

6.The matters stated by the applicant 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.  The complaints in his submission are largely in repetition of the grounds he relied upon below, which have been dealt with by the judge below as well as by this court in [13]-[15] of our judgment.  The latest allegation that the Board was not neutral seems to us to be based on nothing other than the fact that its decision was adverse to the applicant.  The complaints concerning the errors allegedly made by the Board are not related to any error in our judgment and not a valid ground of appeal. 

7.In our view, these complaints provide no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal.  In any event they do not raise any question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 9 August 2019 is dismissed.

Written submissions by the applicant, acting in person