Re Uddin Miha Jalal

CACV 138/2019

[2020] HKCA 206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 138 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1081/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA, G Lam J and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  16 April 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 1 August 2019, this court (Barma JA, G Lam and ST Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the judge”) on 15 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 decision 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 would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 23 August 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant referred to a number of cases on high standard of fairness without explaining how they are relevant to his case.

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.The applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars for the grounds raised in the Notice of Motion.  Further, the majority of those grounds are concerned with the Board’s Decision and the decision by the Director but not the judgment of this court.  The applicant failed to explain the relevance of the cases referred to in his submission.  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 9 August 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person