Rai Pancha Mani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 90/2019

[2019] HKCA 809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1022 OF 2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 13 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 671) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung (“the Judge”) given on 8 February 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 14 June 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 28 June 2019. 

3.The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 18 June 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated the following:

“I am not satisfied with the decision given by appeal board and The Director of Immigration. Because my life is not save [sic] in my country. This decision is not based on facts and away from fairness. Please help me to stay here until I have [no] problem.”

5.The applicant’s written submissions repeated his case which had been advanced before the Judge.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.The applicant’s grounds are broad and vague and are without particulars.

8.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 14 June 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person