RE CHAUDHARY VINAY

CACV 434/2023, [2025] HKCA 96

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 3313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1444 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 17 May 2024, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 18 December 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the 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 filed on 29 May 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  The Judges did not apply the principle of procedural unfairness;

2)  The Judges did not apply the principle of irrationality;

3)  The decision maker rely on COL information which were in favour of rejecting the applicant’s claim;

4)  The Courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining;

5)  The Judges did not apply the law properly and procedural unfairness; and

6)  The applicant’s life is in danger.  The applicant will be harmed or killed if he returns.

4.  The applicant’s written submissions consist entirely of general statements of law, quotations from cases and bald assertions to procedural unfairness.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  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.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

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

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 29 May 2024 is dismissed.