ALI MOZAM

CACV 375/2019

[2020] HKCA 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2809 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung JA, Chu JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  21 January 2020

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 11 December 2019, this Court (Chu JA and ST Poon J) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 25 July 2019 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 20 December 2019, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He 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 set out two proposed grounds of appeal:

(1)  Failure to observe the country of origin information. The country conditions are such that the applicant will be in danger of being killed by his enemies and cannot get protection from the government as the systems in the country are corrupt.

(2)  Failure to consider the facts of the applicant’s claim.  The applicant has suffered from the fear of being harmed by his enemies and the danger to his life upon refoulement, which still continues. 

6.  The arguments raised in the written submissions are almost identical to the written submission for the appeal hearing.  The only new argument appears at paragraph 4, which disagrees with this Court’s judgment and contends that the applicant’s claim is not a private and personal matter, but the decision maker had totally failed to consider the BOR 2 risk and BOR 3 risks grounds.    

7.  The proposed grounds of appeal and the do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  What he had stated in the notice of motion and written submission only relate to the circumstances of his case.  Further, for the reasons we gave in [14] of our judgment, the proposed grounds of appeal and arguments have no merits.      

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

9.  In the circumstances, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.