|
CACV 605/2018
[2019] HKCA 692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 605 OF 2018
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1075 OF 2017)
_________________
| RE: |
VERMA SUNNY |
Applicant |
_________________
Before: Hon Barma, Au JJA and G Lam J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 20 May 2019
Date of Decision: 26 June 2019
_________________
D E C I S I O N
_________________
Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 19 December 2018 refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The applicant subsequently applied, by Notice of Motion dated 6 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“ I am not satisfied with this decision because my life is not save in my own country. I am helpless person in front of my enemies. Please protect my life and help me to stay here until I have problem.” [sic]
3. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 20 May 2019. We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.
4. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated that his uncle wanted to take away his land, that his uncle has control over the police and authorities, that the applicant does not have enough resources to protect himself and that he fears that if he returns to India he may be tortured or killed by his enemies.
5. In our view, none of the matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion or his written submission, taken singly or in combination, 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised. The applicant has failed to identify any error in our judgment. There is no reasonably arguable issue for decision by the Court of Final Appeal.
6. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
7. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court |
| |
|
of First Instance |
Written submissions by the applicant, acting in person
|