RE RAJEEV KUMAR

CAMP 122/2020

[2021] HKCA 1784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 122 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 344/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 25 September 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, 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 3 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my decision maker. I am totally disagree with the decision maker and the authorities because its towards to my life because decision maker totally relied on news and web information which is actually does not means in real life. I do not wish to return to my home land in India because my life still in danger.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant identified a number of errors allegedly committed by the Director and the Board.  He also submitted that “the authorities” failed to take into account the real procedural unfairness and they adopted a discriminatory policy to deal with non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible.

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.  The applicant did not identify the authorities who were the subject of some of his complaints.  Further, all of his complaints lacked particulars.  In our view, the applicant has clearly failed to substantiate any error in our judgment and none of the grounds advanced by the applicant are, in our view, 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 3 June 2021 is dismissed.