|
CACV 357/2021
[2022] HKCA 639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 357 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1527 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SONI PRATIK |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 15 November 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ To given on 28 April 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim, but not the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision.
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 7 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant simply stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished “to go to the Court of Final Appeal”, without setting out any grounds.
4. In his written submissions lodged on 21 December 2021, the applicant merely repeated the dangers he may face if he was refouled to India.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no 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 7 December 2021 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Lisa Wong)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|