BANDELA VENU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 158/2022, [2023] HKCA 936

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 158 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 346 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 20 June 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 26 June 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that that he was unable to submit his supporting documents during his first interview but he still had problems in his country which he would explain in an oral hearing and that he would try his best to submit his documents.

3.  In the written submissions lodged on 7 July 2023, the applicant stated he still had problems from his enemies in his country.  He was unable to submit supporting documents during his interview because nobody helped him to obtain them from his country.  He repeated his case about the danger he would face in India if he returned there.  He also submitted documents relating to his two children born in Hong Kong in 2015 and 2021 respectively and said one of them was ill.  He asked for time to get his documents from India.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.