Re Radhakrishnan Balasubramanian

CAMP 471/2021

[2022] HKCA 189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 471 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1030 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 15 December 2021, this Court handed down our judgment ([2021] HKCA 1862)  refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 April 2021 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 24 December 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 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.

6.The notice of motion stated that (i)  there is some error in the determination of the applicant’s case; (ii)  the decision makers just relied on country of origin information and facts that favour the rejection of his case when the actual country condition is different; (iii)  the immigration officer and the High Court prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence committed on the minorities; and (iv)  their decisions betray a biased and formulaic approach and do not fairly assess the danger of the applicant’s situation.

7.In the written submission, after giving an outline of the applicant’s personal background and the concept of “asylum”, the applicant argued that (i)  the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalising its decision and refused the appeal without any reason; (ii)  the decision makers and the Court were wrong to consider the violence was not severe enough to qualify as torture; and (iii)  his life will be in great peril if he were to go back to his home country.  The applicant also referred to section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, and requested to be provided with legal and interpretation assistance.   

8.We are of the view that all the matters put forward by the applicant do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all relate to the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances.  It has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the notice of motion is dismissed.  

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.