|
CACV 121/2022
[2022] HKCA 1318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 121 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2565 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
BEPARI SUMON |
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 Submissions: 26 August 2022
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 2 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 1 March 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. I was not satisfied so I came to the High Court for leave to [apply] for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my [application]. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
3. In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 26 August 2022, he repeats the basis of his non-refoulement claim, but has failed to identify any alleged error in 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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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. 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.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|