Re Reza Sahin

CACV 467/2018

[2019] HKCA 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 467 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1078 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA, M Poon and L Wong JJ in Court

Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions:  9 April 2019

Date of Judgment:  27 May 2019

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon M Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By our judgment dated 4 March 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 244), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 September 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 2059)  refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.In his notice of motion filed on 7 March 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant stated that:

“- The claims that the Judgment has made stated there is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds has not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer in due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

-  The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.”

3.The applicant’s supporting affirmation dated 7 March 2019 stated that:

“2(1). The Honorable Judges from the Court were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement.

(2). The Honorable Judges from the Court also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Bangladesh.”

4.In his written submissions dated 9 April 2019, he set out the background of his claim, the legal framework and cited various authorities.  There was no elaboration as to how these cases would apply to his case, nor was there any proposed question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  It merely stated that as life and limb were in jeopardy, high standards of fairness are required in the determination of his claim.  It was submitted that the Board erred in failing to consider the conditions in his country of origin.

5.In accordance with the general practice stipulated under paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we find it proper to deal with and determine this application on papers without an oral hearing.

6.As indicated in our judgment, state acquiescence or involvement is not among the judge’s reason for dismissing the application.  The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that he failed to put forth any effective argument that could reverse the judge’s decision.  In this application, the applicant failed to demonstrate we were wrong in that regard. In our view, nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s written submissions can merit submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.

7.It is plain that the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  They do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met: section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

8.There is no basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.

9.Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.