Re Md Abdullah Al Mamun

CAMP 309/2021

[2022] HKCA 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 309 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1420 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1.On 30 December 2021, this Court handed down the decision ([2021] HKCA 2008)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 14 April 2021 who refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 10 January 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 24 January 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion are as follows :

‘ It is not possible me to return my country at this moment, I have news that might be killed I return to my country it is my request to honourable court of final to reconsider my sisution’

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated general non-refoulement legal principle and statutory authority without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person