Re Mostofa

CACV 117/2020

[2021] HKCA 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 117 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1373/2018)

____________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 November 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 5 November 2020. In that judgment, Lam VP and Pang JA dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 6 May 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

(1)  the Court did not consider properly that the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration were fair in their duty in considering his claim under all applicable grounds;

(2)  failure to consider country of origin information (COI) and state protection; and

(3)  failure to give proper reasons for not providing protection under BOR 3 risk.

4.The second and third grounds had already been considered and rejected in our judgment of 5 November 2020.  The first ground is a general assertion without particulars, and not a proper ground for leave to appeal.

5.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 18 November 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 27 November 2020.  In those submissions he largely reiterated the same arguments in his previous written submissions on appeal to this Court.  He also submitted that his claim was based on the true story of his life.

6.The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

7.In any event, in the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person