Re Hague Gaziul

CACV 532/2021

[2022] HKCA 1094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1425 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Chu JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment: 1 August 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 30 May 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 701) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 19 November 2021 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 10 June 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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, 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 Notice of Motion did not provide any ground in support of the intended appeal. It only stated that the applicant was not satisfied with the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claim Appeals Board and the Court, and wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.In his written submission, the applicant gave an outline of his background and his non-refoulement claim, and stated that because of what he had posted on social media after coming to Hong Kong, it has become more dangerous for him to return to Bangladesh.

8.We are of the view that what was stated in the Notice of Motion and written submission does not amount to viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.