GIRI ANUP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 394/2022, [2023] HKCA 686

On an Intended Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3843 &

[2022] HKCFI 2731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 394 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NOS 1437 OF 2018 AND 1878 OF 2020 (CONSOLIDATED))

________________________

________________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1.  On 24 April 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 22 December 2021 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 20 June 2018 and 12 August 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the respective appeals of the 1^st and 2^nd Applicants and 3^rd Applicant against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 6 December 2016 and 19 June 2019 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 2 May 2023, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants stated that they did not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal, and repeated that if they returned to their home country, they would be killed by their enemy. No proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment is identified in the Notice of Motion.

4.  The Applicants have failed to lodge with the court written submissions in support of their application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 May 2023.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

8.  For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 3^rd Applicant’s application a nullity.