|
CACV 335/2020
[2021] HKCA 516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 335 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1904 OF 2018)
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
KUMAR PRADIP |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Barma, Au JJA and S T Poon J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
12 May 2021 |
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 February 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the judge”) on 31 July 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
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 dated 24 February 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“Respected Sir/Madam, its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness (sic)”
4. Because the applicant failed to comply with the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 March 2021, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.
5. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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. The applicant only advanced a single ground of appeal based on the alleged danger upon his return. We have already held at [19] of our judgment that there is no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision to dismiss the leave for judicial review application and that the applicant has failed to substantiate any public law error in the Board’s Decision.
8. As we have observed in [6] of our judgment, the Board dismissed his claim for being incredible and that in any event he did not face a substantial risk of harm even if his evidence is accepted, that state protection is available and internal relocation would be viable. In our view, this ground is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 February 2021 is dismissed.
| (Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
(S T Poon) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person
|