Re Athalage Prasad Susantha Perera

CACV 17/2022

[2022] HKCA 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 17 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 493 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

1.This Court (Chow JA and Wong J) gave Judgment on 17 May 2022 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 24 December 2021 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 detailed here.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to lodge written submissions by 10 June 2022.

3.The Applicant filed submission on 7 June 2022.

4.The Registrar had further directed 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.

5.The applicant is not legally represented. The main points he stated in his Notice of Motion are:

(1)  As there are still political and economic problems in his country and he does not have any contact with his family, he cannot submit any supporting document to court; and

(2)  He will try his best to contact his friend and try to obtain the documents.

6.In his submission, the applicant basically repeated what he stated in his Notice of Motion and said he spends his life alone having separated from his family.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance[1] provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

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

9.The grounds raised by the Applicant in the appeal before us concerned assessment of evidence, risk of harm, state protection and (if relevant) viability of internal relocation as well as consideration of COI material. The Applicant failed to raise any viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person