RE TAMANG UTTAR KUMAR

CACV 312/2024, [2025] HKCA 289

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 312 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1471/2019)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 2 January 2025, this court (Barma JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 25 July 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the 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 6 January 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant’s grounds stated therein may be summarised as follows. Essentially, he contends that this Court:

(a)  Failed to “appreciate the significance of [his] non-refoulement claim, by, inter alia, failing to provide “assistance” to him “considering [his] vulnerability and disadvantage”;

(b)  Failed to accord weight to his complaint (which he had raised in the appeal) concerning his lack of language and legal assistance;

(c)  Failed to “discuss the errors made by the Board and the Director” and dismissed the appeal “with the lack of evidential consideration of issues raised”.

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 20 January 2025. In the written submissions, the applicant essentially repeated his complaints against the Board (which he raised in the appeal) as well as his complaint of the apparent unfairness caused by his lack of legal representation and language assistance in the proceedings.

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 6 January 2025 is dismissed.