Re Maurya Shailesh Kumar

CAMP 298/2021

[2022] HKCA 940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 298 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 774 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1.On 30 December 2021, this Court handed down the decision ([2021] HKCA 2006)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 September 2020 who refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 14 January 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 28 January 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 (‘HKCFAO’)  (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 grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion and affirmation are summarized as follows :

1)  The Judge failed to consider all applicable grounds including Articles 2 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.

2)  The Judge was wrong to accept the adjudicator’s holding that the only fact established was the applicant’s nationality, and the risk of persecution failed.

3)  The finding that the adjudicator’s decision was without fault was irrational.

4)  The applicant asks to stay in Hong Kong because his life is still in danger and he does not want to return.

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated general non-refoulement legal principle without specifying how they relate to the particulars of his case.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person