RE SK SARFARAJ

CACV 64/2018

[2018] HKCA 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 64 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 467 OF 2017)

------------------------------

-------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 29 May 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock of 13 March 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review. By a notice of motion dated 11 June 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission dated 25 June 2018.  In substance, he submitted that he will be in danger from Hindu believers if he were to return to India.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is usually processed on the papers as provided for by paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1 on Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal in Civil Cases which states that leave applications shall be dealt with and determined on paper unless the court directs otherwise.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and skeleton submissions, we do not see any justification for departing from such usual practice.  We consider that the application can be properly disposed of without an oral hearing, and have proceeded to consider the application on paper.  We now hand down our judgment.

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.  In this case, the applicant explained how the danger from the Hindu believers may materialise, and in essence repeated the claim he made to the Director and to the Board.

5.  For the reasons that the court gave in the judgment of 29 May 2018, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the judge’s order.  At paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment, the court upheld the finding by the Board that there was no reasonable possibility of the applicant being persecuted upon his return and that state protection exists.  The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. 

6.  The matters relied upon by the applicant do not amount to questions of great, general or public importance. The applicant has failed to meet the threshold imposed by section 22(1)(b) to enable him to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.