Bashu Shing v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition and Another

CACV 523/2019

[2021] HKCA 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 523 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1087 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Hon Barma JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  23 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  17 March 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 9 June 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 25 May 2020.  In that judgment the Court (Lam VP and S T Poon J) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 6 November 2019 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 stated that this Court’s judgment was wrong and unfair, without providing any further detail.

4.The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 June 2020.  In those submissions, the Applicant reiterated the basis of his non-refoulement claim, i.e. that he had political problem(s) in Bangladesh and that as a member of the Hindu minority he would be tortured and his life would be endangered by the Muslim majority in Bangladesh.

5.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 arguments in his submissions do not identify any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below. 

6.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.

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person