Re Miah Mohammad Sahin

CACV 224/2020

[2021] HKCA 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 224 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1691/2018)

____________________

____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 15 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 4 December 2020. In that judgment the Court (Lam VP and Chu JA) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 17 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 stated that his life was in danger and that the real situation in Bangladesh was different from that depicted in the COI.

4.He did not engage with the Court’s reasons for dismissing his appeal.  It has been held in other applications[1] that similar general assertions could not give rise to proper grounds for appeal.

5.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 16 December 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions on 29 December 2020.  A substantial portion of those submissions consist of general statements of law and generic grounds as to procedural impropriety/unfairness and irrationality without identifying how those statements specifically relate to this appeal or assist the Applicant. 

6.Further, the submissions have no evidential support since he had not previously raised these grounds in the appeal or in the court below.

7.All in all, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal 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 the judgment of this Court.

8.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.

9.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