RE RAVI KUMAR

CAMP 311/2022, [2024] HKCA 1176

On an intended appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 311 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2535 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 2 September 2021 refusing to grant 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 application, 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 6 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that this court’s judgment was “not good for [him]” and that he wished to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

4.  In the applicant’s written submissions lodged on 20 April 2023, he repeated the factual background to his claim, that there was still a threat to his life in India, and that he wanted to appeal to the Court of Final 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.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises 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 6 April 2023 is dismissed.