RE KULDEEP KUMAR

CAMP 110/2019

[2020] HKCA 102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 110 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 921 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 23 October 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and Chu JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 15 January 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 28 October 2019, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he would like his case to be processed further.  

1.4  The applicant in his written submissions repeated his background information, the information about his country of origin, his fear of returning, state acquiescence and his fear of torture.  He asked for more time to stay in Hong Kong.

2)  Legal principles

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

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 28 October 2019 is dismissed.