Re Shahinur Alam

CACV 414/2024, [2026] HKCA 560

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1905 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Decision of the Court):

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 27 January 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 20 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it were set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here. Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.

3.The applicant applied, by a notice of motion filed on 6 February 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary:

1)    there was procedural impropriety in that there was a failure to consider the fact that the applicant fears for his life, and he will face a risk if refouled; and

2)    there was error and misdirection in law in that there was a failure to consider country of origin information.

4.The applicant’s written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)    the assessors considered that the applicant’s fear was too low whereas his fear still continues;

2)    the Board did not follow high standard of fairness as country of origin information shows that the applicant’s country cannot protect him;

3)    the applicant’s case is a personal and private dispute but it is still too risky for him to return;

4)    the decision-maker did not observe his fear properly;

5)    the Judges did not focus on the applicant’s fear;

6)    the Judge just confirmed the Board’s decision; and

7)    the applicant requests the Court to consider his fear.

II.     Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submission are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to, nor explain and elaborate on, the particular circumstances of the applicant.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.     Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 February 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant, acting in person.