Re Hossain Md Khabir

CACV 396/2019

[2021] HKCA 1338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 396 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 330/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  24 September 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 7 May 2021, this court (Yeung, Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 14 August 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 17 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The [Director] and the [Board] cancel my non-refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. This total process I did not get justice, to get justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.The applicant filed a written submission on 23 July 2021.  The applicant gave a brief summary of the procedural history of his non-refoulement claim and submitted that “this total way I did not get justice”.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.In the Notice of Motion and the written submission, the applicant claimed that he did not get justice but he did not explain why that was the case.  He did not identify any supposed error in our judgment and has therefore failed to put forward any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 17 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person