RE KAMAL KUMAR

CACV 363/2018

[2019] HKCA 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 363 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 657 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

1.  On 16 November 2018, this Court handed down a judgment (“our Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock, given on 25 July 2018, in which she refused to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review (“Decision of the Judge”).  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) who rejected his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal application before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion dated 28 November 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion:

“ I cant go back to my country at this moment because my life is not safe there. I am looking towards your kind favour so that I can stay in Hong Kong until my problem will be solved.”

5.  The applicant’s written submissions lodged on 12 December 2018 stated that : (1) his life was not safe in his home country; (2) his enemy bribes the local authorities who ignore their wrongdoings; (3) he suffers from torture; (4) he does not have resources; (5) his enemy has a large network.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

7.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with Section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 28 November 2018 is dismissed.