RE MITRA JOY KUMAR

CACV 546/2020

[2021] HKCA 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 546 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1898 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  The court (Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and Lok J) handed down judgment on 15 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 860) dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of DHCJ K W Lung given on 29 June 2020 refusing to extend the time to apply for judicial review and dismissing the application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.  On 8 October 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision.  As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 15 June 2021, we dismissed the appeal. The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 5 July 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to infomr (sic) the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours (sic) prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  Pursuant to the directions given by Registrar of Civil Appeals on 5 July 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 16 July 2021.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, we proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he quoted passages from ST v Director of Immigration[1] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, and other decisions on Wednesbury unreasonableness.  He further submitted that “high standards of fairness” applied to the determination of a non-refoulement claim and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility.  Lastly, he referred to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) which is concerned with the late filing of notice of appeal to the Board.  However, he did not explain and elaborate how the aforesaid cases and legal provisions were relevant to or would assist his case.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) provides that 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.

7.  Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.    

8.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 5 July 2021 is dismissed.