|
CACV 191/2022
[2022] HKCA 1816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 191 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 442 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
DAS SUJON CHANDRA |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Chow JA and Ng J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 15 November 2022
Date of Judgment: 9 December 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 20 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge To on 28 April 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 10 December 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 24 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following grounds are stated:
“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.
2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.
3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COI information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.
4. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.
5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.
6. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country. I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.”
3. The Applicant’s written submissions, apart from citing some authorities on the general principles concerning the standard of fairness, add nothing of substance to the leave application and fail to identify any proposed ground of appeal against the CA Judgment in light of s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.
4. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 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. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Anderson Chow) |
(Peter Ng) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person.
|