RE VIJAY KUMAR

CACV 441/2018 & CACV 442/2018

(Heard together)

[2019] HKCA 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1032 OF 2017)

_______________________

_______________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1033 OF 2017)

_______________________

_______________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the decision of the Court) :

1.  On 22 February 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 31 August 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeals, as well as our reasons for dismissing them, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicants now apply, by notices of motion filed on 1 March 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.    

4.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 4 March 2019 that the notices of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing unless otherwise directed.  Notwithstanding the directions, the applicants have failed to lodge with the Court their supporting written submissions by 15 March 2019.  We will now determine the applicants’ applications on paper.

5.  The applicants stated in their notices of motion that there were failures in the legal process in not providing them with language and legal assistance.  They made the same complaint about the country of origin information.  They complained about the lack of legal representation for the BOR risk and that their BOR 2 ground should be put forward to the Director of Immigration and not to the Board or the Judge.  

6.  We are of the view that these complaints have all been considered in our judgment.  In any event, the matters stated by the applicants in their notices of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484).  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters they have raised in their notices of motion.

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

8.  For these reasons, the applicants’ notices of motion filed on 1 March 2019 are dismissed.