Re Apple Razaul Karim

CACV 546/2018

[2019] HKCA 924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 546 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1043/2017)

_______________

_______________

Before: Hon Yuen, Au JJA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 9 July 2019

Date of Judgment: 19 August 2019

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 25 June 2019 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment dated 13 June 2019[1] (“Judgment”) of this court (Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 26 October 2018[2] by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”), refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 30 November 2017 (“Board’s Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”).

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.By virtue of s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA, from any judgment of the CA in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the CA or the CFA, as the case may be, 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant first asserted in the notice of motion (sic):

“THE HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSED MY APPLY. BUT THE HONOURABLE JUDGE DID NOT SHOW ANY GOOD CAUSE TO REFUSED. THIS IS UNFORTUNATE. I WISH I WILL GET A GOOD DECISION IN COURT OF FINAL APPEAL. AS I AM NOT SATISFY SO I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.”

5.Second, the written submission lodged by the applicant on 9 July 2019 read as follows (sic):

“I AM A BOY FROM BANGLADESH. MY FULL NAME IS APPLE RAZAUL KARIM. MY MOTHER LANGUAGE IS BENGALI. I WAS AN ACTIVE WORKER OF BANGLADESH NATIONALIST PARTY (BNP). BANGLADESH AWAMI LEAGUE IS ANOTHER BIG POLITICAL PARTY IN BANGLADESH. BL IS MY ENEMY. FROM 2008 THEY ARE IN POWER. BL WORKER SUPPORTER AND LEADER WANT TO KILL ME. I HAVE LIFE RISK IN BANGLADESH. SO I APPLY NON REFOULEMENT PROTECTION CLAIM IN HONG KONG. BUT ONE OFFICER ON BEHALF OF DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION REFUSED MY CLAIM. THOUGH DUTY LAWYER SERVICE PROVIDED ME A LAWYER BUT THAT LAWYER DID NOT HELP ME TOTALY. HE DID NOT GIVE ME ANY SUGGESTION. I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS MY LAWYER DUTY. I TOLD ALL MY STORY AND INTERPRETER WRITE. ON THE DAY OF MY SCREEN INTERVIEW MY OFFICER ASKED HIM TO NOT TALK AT ALL. YES, IT WAS CORRECT. BUT BEFORE MY INTERVIEW HE CAN GAVE ME SOME SUGGESTION.

THEN COMES TO THE SUBJECT OF THE BOARD, I WAS NOT FIT FOR MY INTERVIER. BUT MY ADJUDICATOR DONOT CARE ABOUT MY HEALTH. SO I FAILED TO ANSWER ALL HIS QUESTION. AND I FAILED TO SAY HIM MY PROBLEM PROPERLY. I THOUGHT IF I TOLD ALL MY TRUE STORY TO ADJUDICATOR HE MUST NOT REFUSED MY CLAIM.

AFTER MY CLAIM REFUSAL FROM THE BOARD I CAME TO THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDING TO THE HIGH COURT ADJUDICATOR OR IMMIGRATION DIRECTOR DID NOT MAKE ANY ERROR OF LAW. BUT THEY MADE MANY ERROR OF LAW. THEN I CAME TO THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE COURT OF APPEAL FOLLOW THE HIGH COURT ORDER, I WAS NOT SATISFY BOTH OF THAT TWO ORDER. IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHICH ONE I UNDERSTAND WHY JUDGES NOT UNDERSTAND. IMMIGRATION DIRECTOR AND ADJUDICATOR MADE A CLEAR EYE WASH. THEY KILL ME IN DIRTY WATER. DUTY LAWYER NOT HELP ME. IS IT NOT ERROR? I WAS SICK. BUT ADJUDICATOR NOT CONSIDER MY HEALTH CONDITION. IS IT NOT ERROR?

SO ALL ORDER GOES AGAINST ME. I AM SORRY TO SAY ALL OF THE AUTHORITIES WHO GAVE ORDER THEY ARE NOT BLAIND.  THEY HAVE ONE EAY.  JUST GIVE ORDER AGAINST ME.  IF BLAINDLY ANY ONE CHEAK MY CLAIM IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REFUSED TO SAVE MY LIFE I WILL NEVER RETURN BANGLADESH, SO I WISH NEXT JUSTICE WILL BE CORRECT.”

Discussion

6.The applicant has not by the aforesaid notice of motion or written submission raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.Nor do we see any basis to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

(1) First, the proposed grounds for judicial review raised by the applicant before the Judge did not make any complaint against the duty lawyer representing the applicant before the Director of Immigration or any attempt to explain, on the ground of ill-health, his failure to answer the Board’s questions particularly those about the dates of many events that should be significant to him, if his account were true, which was the reason why the Board questioned the applicant’s credibility. 

(2) Second, neither of these new allegations appeared in the notice of appeal or written submission before us. 

(3) In the circumstances, we do not see how either the Judge or the CA could be said to have erred.

(4) The applicant has simply failed to engage the reasons we set out in the Judgment for dismissing his appeal against the Judge’s refusal of leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

(5) The bare complaint of dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Director, the Board, the Judge and/or the CA, repetition of the allegation of fear of being tortured or even killed upon return to his home country and/or expression of expectation of a better outcome in the CFA do not constitute grounds of appeal, properly so called.

(6) We cannot discern any merit in the proposed appeal to the CFA.

8.Neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person