RE HIKKADUWA GALAPPATHTHIGE SARANGA MANOJ KUMARA GALAPPATHTHI

CACV 20 /2025, [2025] HKCA 875

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 20 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2247 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 June 2025.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 7 July 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant stated he was waiting for his dependent visa and had three children to care for in Hong Kong. 

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 18 July 2025, the applicant stated that it was difficult to obtain any supporting documents for his local authorities and that he was waiting for a decision from the Immigration Department regarding his dependent visa applications. 

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.