Re Golam Hakkani
Read the full judgment text of CACV 179/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 December 2021.
1. The applicant is a Bangladeshi national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, [1] and his appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 29 October 2021. [2]
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 179/2021 [2021] HKCA 1936 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 179 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 699 OF 2018)
____________ ________________________ Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 23 November 2021 Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan,[1] and his appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 29 October 2021.[2] 2.The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here. 3.The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 9 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:
4.In an appendix to the Notice of Motion, the applicant reiterated his arguments in his application for leave for judicial review and in his appeal to this Court. He also raised a new argument that Bangladesh has been a hotbed of communal violence against the Hindu minority, as well as arguing that this Court failed to sufficiently research and inquire into country of origin information (“COI”) and to have regard to relevant and updated COI. He also stated that he did not want to return to his country until the COVID-19 pandemic ends, due to the dangerous conditions of the pandemic in his country. 5.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing. 6.In his written submissions of 23 November 2021, the applicant stated he had made an application for legal aid. It does not appear that any memorandum of such application has been lodged with the court. In any event, we consider it an appropriate case in which to lift any stay that may have automatically come into force as a result of a legal aid application. 7.In his written submissions the applicant reiterated the content of the appendix to the Notice of Motion and his prior submissions in the appeal in this Court, as well as referring to updated COI regarding overcrowding in prisons in Bangladesh and document fraud in that country. 8.Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 9.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person [2] [2021] HKCA 1555 (G Lam and Chow JJA) | ||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 179/2021