Re Gora

CAMP 30/2022

[2022] HKCA 1545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 30 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 852 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  18 October 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 9 September 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1324)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 8 October 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 15 September 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 Appeal, he has not put in any written submission to support the 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 states that: (1)  there are some errors of law in the decision as the decision maker relied on country of origin information (“COI”)  and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim; (2)  actual life situation is different from what was stated in the COI. The Court and the decision makers ignored overwhelming evidence of violence committed towards the minorities, searching for unrealistic silver lining; (3)  the decision betrayed a formulaic approach without fairly assessing the danger to the applicant and was calculated to reject his claim; and (6)  the applicant did not legal representation and requested that legal assistance be provide to him.  

7.The matters put forward in the Notice of Motion do not amount to viable grounds for the intended appeal.  Importantly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, had been identified.   

8.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.