Re Deepak Kumar

CAMP 76/2022

[2022] HKCA 1322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MIXCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 76 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 361 OF 2021)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chu and M Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 9 September 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 22 June 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 828) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 23 July 2021 refusing to grant his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 18 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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, 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 Notice of Motion stated that (1) the applicant disagreed with our judgment, which has the effect of making him liable to be removed from Hong Kong to his home country where his life would be at risk; (2) the applicant would be killed by his enemy if he were to return to his country; and (3) the Torture Claim Appeals Board and the Director of Immigration did not scrutinize his claim properly.

7.The Notice of Motion has not set out any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  In any event, the assertions made by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds of appeal for the reasons we gave at [17] and [18] of our judgment.  We also do not see any basis for the “or 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, acting in person.