Re Mirissage Rohan Sanjeewa Priyanthi Fernando

CACV 35/2022

[2022] HKCA 1023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 35 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 131 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and Wong J in Court

Date of Notice of Motion:  23 May 2022

Date of Written Submission:  6 June 2022

Date of Judgment:  18 July 2022

________________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 7 January 2022 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 23 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 6 June 2022.

3.The Applicant filed submission on 6 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)  This Court erred in dismissing his appeal;

(2)  The Adjudicator[1] erred in his decision; and

(3)  He had not been able to point out the errors of the decision respectively of the Board[2] and the Director[3] as he was uneducated, poor in English and did not have legal representation and sufficient assistance.

6.In his submission, the applicant alleged that this court has not considered his grounds of appeal thoroughly and that the decision is not logical.  He further stated that he has not been provided with sufficient translation and legal service so that he can fully understand the decision of this Court and the lower court / Board / Director.  He asked for a reconsideration of the case.

7.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance[4] 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 Applicant made assertion that he would face hardship if he returns to Sri Lanka.  The grounds raised by the Applicant in the appeal before us concerned mainly assessment of evidence, risk of harm, state protection, 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.  We also noted that the Applicant was legally represented before the Board.

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 23 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person