Re Chowdhury Abdul Kader

CACV 166/2020

[2021] HKCA 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 166 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 202/2018)

____________________

____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 7 December 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 19 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 (“the Judge”) on 1 June 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, the Applicant put forward some general comments but did not engage with or pinpoint any specific legal error in our judgment.

4.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 9 December 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions on 21 December 2020. Substantial parts of those submissions consist of generic arguments and again did not engage with or pinpoint any specific error in our judgment.

5.Parts of the submissions are clearly not related to the present case. 

6.Some of the factual assertions at page 3 of his submissions (e.g. being detained by Delaware, or having a leadership role within a party) did not arise from the case he had all along advanced before the Director, the Board and the courts.

7.At pages 4 to 6 of his submissions the Applicant referred to his claim being rejected due to a certificate as to his level of party involvement being disbelieved in light of country of origin information indicating a high level of document fraud in Bangladesh.  This argument is advanced on a false premise because the Applicant’s case was that though he was a supporter, he did not hold any position in the BNP.  No certificate had ever been produced by him. The Board’s rejection of his claim was not based on any concerns as to authenticity of documents.

8.At page 7 of his submissions he advanced factual assertions that are at odds with his evidence before the Director and the Board: he alleged he was detained in a rudimentary Bengali jail and that he was a BNP member since age 9.  However, his evidence was that he did not join the BNP until after he left school, and he did not mention being detained in a Bengali village jail.  

9.At page 8 of those submissions the Applicant referred to the fact that he was unrepresented at the Board hearing.  This argument had not previously been raised and is in any event untenable because the high standard of fairness does not demand that legal representation be made available at all time to a non-refoulement claimant: Re Akram Raja Noman [2019] HKCA 1361.

10.The Applicant has not raised any discernible arguable ground for disturbing our judgment. 

11.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.

12.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