RE NAJMUL MOHAMMAD

CACV 260/2024, [2025] HKCA 665

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1509 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 25 October 2024, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 13 June 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 are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 29 October 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

4.  The applicant’s written submissions consist entirely of general statements of law, statutory reference and bald assertions to procedural unfairness.

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 submissions 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 29 October 2024 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

CACV 260/2024, [2024] HKCA 975

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1509 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (‘the Judge’)  of 13 June 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  

2)  Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He entered Hong Kong illegally and was immediately arrested on 3 June 2014.  On 7 June 2014, the applicant made a non-refoulement claim[1].

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by the Awami League (‘AL’)  because of his association with the rival party Jamaate Islami (‘JI’)  and his participation in a protest against AL in 2013[2].

4.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [6] to [9].

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 22 March 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)  on 4 April 2018[4]. After a hearing held on 23 April 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 24 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [13]-[16].

5)  Decision of the Judge

8.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation and was further represented by counsel who relied on six grounds in his written submissions in support of the application for leave for judicial review, see the decision of the Judge at [2]-[4], [17]-[18].

9.  The Judge held that none of the grounds as submitted by counsel were substantiated, see the decision of the Judge at [22]-[50].  The applicant was unable to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.’

11.  The applicant also filed a summons and affirmation complaining that he did not receive any sealed order of the Court.  We take the view that these are bare allegations with no further explanation as to how it is helpful to the applicant’s appeal.

12.  The applicant’s written submission consists of general statements of law, quotation from cases, bald assertions of procedural unfairness.

7)  Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  His grounds of appeal and written submission consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu[2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

14.  The Judge had addressed and rejected each of the grounds advanced before him with reasons.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge had made any error of law.

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person