RE GANITANO BENNY GANOTICE

CACV 427/2020

[2021] HKCA 1470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 427 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1364/2018)

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 4 June 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 27 May 2020 refusing to grant extension of time for his application for leave for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave 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 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 9 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not give any grounds in the Notice of Motion.

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 22 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He also submitted that this court failed to appreciate how the lack of legal knowledge caused his delay in bringing the application for judicial review.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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.  We have already dealt with the complaint related to the alleged lack of legal representation at [20] of our judgment.  The applicant did not identify any error in our judgment and he has therefore failed to advance any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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 9 June 2021 is dismissed.