Re Giri Yubaraj

CACV 78/2022

[2022] HKCA 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 521 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

Before:  Hon Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  14 June 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 1 April 2022, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 4 February 2022 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 20 April 2022, 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 lodged a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the 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.Under section 22(1)(b) of the 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.

5.The notice of motion set out the following grounds in support of the application:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not happy about the Honourable Judges decision. To get good judgment I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. I wish you will permit me to go there.”

6.The applicant’s written submission stated that the applicant was from India and his mother language was Panjabi. This is clearly incorrect as the applicant is a native of Nepal. The written submission went on to state that the applicant’s life was under threat in his motherland, and while he loved his country it was not possible for him to return home. It also said that the applicant was upset about the rejection of his claim by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and the dismissal of his application for judicial review the Court. It further asserted that there were many errors but the Court could not find out.

7.We are of the view that there is no proper basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Importantly, it has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, for the reasons we gave at [13] to [16] of our judgment, the assertion in the written submissions that there were errors in the refusal of his claim and application for judicial review is unarguable. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.