Re Satish Kumar

CACV 524/2021

[2022] HKCA 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 524 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1148 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  25 July 2022

Date of Judgment:  11 August 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 14 July 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 19 July 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant stated that he had problems in his own country and could not go back because there was still danger for him, and asked for time so that he could solve his problems.

3.In his written submissions for this application, the applicant stated that his life would become worse if he returned to his country, that there were many things in his case ignored in the decisions so far, that the situation in his country was very different from what the decision-makers thought, that he would be in danger in his country because of his enemies, that his enemies had a lot of influence and power.  He asked for time so that the problems in his country could be solved. 

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.The applicant has not specified any error in our judgment.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person