RE GOPAL

CACV 332/2024, [2025] HKCA 644

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 332 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 499 OF 2024)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 3 January 2025, this court (Chow JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 August 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 6 January 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant states that there were some errors made by the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board in their respective decisions, and complains that they relied on “some web news which is officially not recognized”. He repeats his assertion (which he raised in the appeal) that his case was not determined fairly.

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 20 January 2025. In the written submissions, the applicant complains of procedural unfairness arising from the lack of legal and language assistance to him as a self-represented litigant. He also alleges generally that the Putative Respondent’s decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or was the result of procedural errors or unfairness. He also alleges that the Putative Respondent failed to “meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants” [sic].

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant 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, 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.

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. His complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance has been dealt with at paragraph 14 of our judgment dated 3 January 2025. His other complaints are all general assertions without particulars, and have no merit.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 6 January 2025 is dismissed.