RE DHAN BAHADUR SHREES THAPA

CACV 377/2021

[2023] HKCA 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 377 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2713 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 15 November 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  given on 22 July 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 filed on 2 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed inter alia, without elaboration, that this court did not apply the principle of procedural fairness and was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality.  He also alleged that the Judge did not “apply the law properly” and repeated that his life was in danger in his home country and therefore he could not return.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 16 December 2021, the applicant repeated his complaints of the lack of legal representation and language assistance in the processing of his non-refoulement claim, which have been fully dealt with by the Judge in the court below and by this court in the appeal.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 2 December 2021 is dismissed.