|
CAMP 288/2021
[2022] HKCA 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 288 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 380 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
CHINNASAMY KARTHIK |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submission: 31 December 2021
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2022
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 8 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 April 2021 dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office / Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 February 2019.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 17 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
“I applied non-refoulement claims in Hong Kong immigration. Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I want to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.”
3. In his written submissions dated 31 December 2021, the Applicant repeats the background of his application for judicial review, but fails to state any grounds of his intended appeal against the CA Judgment.
4. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.
5. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Godfrey Lam) |
(Anderson Chow) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
|