Re Doctor Manuel Dela Cruz

CAMP 80/2020

[2021] HKCA 332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 80 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2493 OF 2018)

_______________________________

_______________________________

Before: Hon Yuen, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 25 January 2021

Date of Judgment:  22 March 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court (Hon Yuen and Au JJA) handed down judgment on 8 January 2021 ([2021] HKCA 12) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of DHCJ K. W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 17 June 2019 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 7 August 2019, the applicant filed a summons for leave to appeal out of time, which the Judge dismissed on 26 June 2020. 

3.On 3 July 2020, the applicant had filed a summons in this court, which as mentioned earlier we dismissed on 8 January 2021.  The facts and issues in the intended appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

4.On 11 January 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

5.The Notice of Motion contains the following grounds of appeal:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary (sic) a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

6.On 12 January 2021, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on or before 25 January 2021, and 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. 

7.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 25 January 2021 in which he quoted passages from ST v Director of Immigration^[1] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, and other decisions on Wednesbury unreasonableness.  He further submitted that “high standards of fairness” applied to the determination of a non-refoulement claim and the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility. Lastly, he referred to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) which is about the late filing of notice of appeal to the Board. However, he did not explain and elaborate how the aforesaid cases and statutory provision were related to or would assist his application to this court.

8.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that 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.

9.The applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.     

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

11.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 11 January 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person