Adhikari Pabittra Chandra v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 406/2018

[2019] HKCA 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 406 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 351 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.By a judgment dated 27 December 2018 ([2018] HKCA 999), the Court of Appeal (Cheung and Poon JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 13 August 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Director dated 27 July 2017 and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 9 February 2018.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.By a notice of motion dated 7 January 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following ground :

“ I can’t go back to my country at this moment because my life is not save (sic) in my own country. Please help me to stay in Hong Kong until I have problem. I hope you will give me your kind favour and help me to save my life. I will be thankful to you for your kindness.”

5.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 8 January 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 January 2019.  In the written submissions, the applicant reiterated that it would not be safe for him to return to his country.  He said that his enemies are powerful and would locate him no matter where he goes in the country, and also they can use their political influence to harm him. 

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.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 our view, none of the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. For the reasons given in our judgment at [10] – [11], we have concluded that the Judge had rightly found that the Director and the Board had proper basis for their assessments, findings and conclusions and had achieved the high standard of fairness in assessing the applicant’s claim.   The applicant’s case was not reasonably arguable.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 27 December 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person