|
CACV 30/2022
[2022] HKCA 830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 30 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2614 OF 2018)
____________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
ROY SANGYA |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Wong J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
2 June 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
16 June 2022 |
____________________
JUDGMENT
____________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 17 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 7 January 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the “grounds of appeal” attached to the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his allegation that he would be harmed, tortured or killed by his wife’s family in India because of his religious belief or faith, and says that he and his present partner have a son born in Hong Kong, and his son suffers from “autism disorder”. The above matters are elaborated in the Applicant’s written submissions dated 2 June 2022. He also states in the written submissions that the problem in India is obvious, and the possibility of relocation in India is a “myth”. He has failed, however, to point to any alleged error in the CA Judgment.
3. 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.
4. 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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Albert Wong)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|