Re Alam Mohammad Masud

CAMP 130/2019

[2020] HKCA 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 130 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1151 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 23 October 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and Chu JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal (‘extension decision’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 22 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 4 November 2019, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3Doing the best we could to interpret that applicant’s notice of motion, the applicant stated that there was no substance in our judgment for holding that his grounds were not true.  He stated that he did not want to be picked out so he did not complain about the poor performance of his lawyer.  He complained he did not have time to deal with the bundles.

1.4The applicant’s affirmation stated that the Judge was wrong in holding there was no state acquiescence and that the Judge did not find out the current situation in Bangladesh.

1.5In the applicant’s written submission, he first regurgitated his own background information.  He then went on to provide the Court with authorities often used in non‑refoulement cases, without showing how those legal principles would apply to his particular circumstances.

1.6We are of the view that the contents of the documents as provided by the applicant are too broad and vague for this Court to provide any meaningful assessment.  Nowhere did we hold that the applicant’s grounds were not true, which is factually incorrect.  Many of the various other arguments raised, although labelled as being an error of the Judge, in reality was directed against the decisions of the Board and the Director.

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3.)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion filed on 4 November 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person