Re Md Mobarak Hossin Shamim

CACV 362/2020

[2021] HKCA 1327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 362 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2041/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J 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 (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 15 June 2020 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 28 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non-refoulement claim. The Director of Immigration and Adjudicator Decision was wrong. I challenged to the High Court. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of the same by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 June 2021.  The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no 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 28 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person