RE ARCEGA IAN PATRICK PEDROSO

CACV 52/2022

[2022] HKCA 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 52 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2326 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Barnes J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 23 June 2022, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  refusing to extend time and to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 7 July 2022, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not lodged any written submission in support of his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

4.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.  The Notice of Motion stated:

“ THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD REJECTED NON-REFOULMENT CLAIM APPLICANTION. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF [APPEAL] REFUSE MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. JUSTICE IS NOT IN MY FAVOR. I WANT TO BRING MY CASE TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.”

6.  The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). 

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

8.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.