RE RAMANATHAN ARUNAGIRINATHAR

CACV 403/2018

[2019] HKCA 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 403 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 885/2017)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By the judgment dated 22 February 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 185), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 10 August 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 1521) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion filed on 7 March 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment. 

3.  It was stated in the notice of motion that the decision makers relied on the country of origin information, but the actual life situation was different.  It was also stated that the decision makers and the courts had ignored overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities, and had demonstrated a biased approach that did not take into account the danger of the applicant’s life.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 20 March 2019, after setting out his personal background, the applicant sought to challenge the decisions of the Director and the Board on the following grounds:

(a)  The Director failed to examine and to give sufficient regard to the concept of state acquiescence;

(b)  The Director erred in holding that there were alternative avenues in seeking justice in Sri Lanka by failing to take into account the police corruption and human rights violation therein;

(c)  The adjudicator failed to examine and to give sufficient regard to the extended concept of state acquiescence;

(d)  It was only the adjudicator’s speculation that the Sri Lankan government had taken steps to protection its citizens;

(e)  The adjudicator failed to advise the applicant to obtain medical reports from Sri Lankan authorities; and

(f)  The lack of legal representation violated the high standards of fairness.

5.  The matters stated in the written submissions were not raised before us in the substantive appeal. Nor were they raised in the Form 86  before the judge. It is simply too late for them to be raised at this stage.  As explained in Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 824 at [9] and Re Zaman Muhammad [2018] HKCA 859 at [7], it is not the practice of this Court to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed at the substantive appeal before us; nor would leave be granted on new fact-sensitive points not argued at the court below.  

6.  At [13] of the judgment, we explained that the applicant’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that no viable ground was put forth to reverse the judge’s decision.  The applicant did not advance any effective ground to argue that we were wrong in any respect.  In this application, the applicant simply failed to engage with our reasons for rejecting his appeal.

7.  Clearly, the matters stated in the notice of motion do not constitute valid ground of appeal.

8.  In any event, the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  There is no reason for us to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

9.  Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.