Re Mostofa Md

CACV 132/2019

[2020] HKCA 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 132 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 732/2018)

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

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

Before: Hon Barma JA, Li J and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 7 May 2020

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 10 September 2019, this court (Barma JA, Li and Lisa Wong JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 7 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 18 September 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“[the Court of Appeal] gave me a decision but it is very hard for me to understand an honourable judge how can give me decision like this. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal for best result.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 2 October 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He also submitted that the Board and the Director did not consider his situation and that he had written many times about the legal error and procedural error but there had been no result.

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 documents filed.

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.  

7.The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground for judicial review or for appeal.  The applicant also submitted that there were legal error and procedural error but he has not given any particulars.  Further, he has not identified any error in our judgment.

8.In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 18 September 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person