Re Ling Ayo Jessie Fernando

CACV 28/2020

[2021] HKCA 764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1604 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 1 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 198), this Court (Yeung VP & B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 14 January 2020 in HCAL 1604/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 23 January 2017 and 3 August 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 8 April 2015 and 6 June 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 8 March 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“The Honourable High Court Judge refused my leave to appeal for judicial review. To stay in Hong Kong I should go to the Court of Final Appeal. I wish the Court of Final Appeal will grant my leave.”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 March 2021, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 22 March 2021.  He failed to do so.

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on the papers without an oral hearing.

5.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. 

6.Here, the applicant failed to pinpoint any error of law or raised any discernible grounds to reverse our judgment and his intended appeal is bound to fail.  In our judgment, the applicant’s case has no merit and nothing set out in the Notice of Motion can be construed as valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 1 March 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the matters raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

8.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.