BabelCite

Kuruppu Arachchi Appuhamilage Don Kapila Asanka v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of CACV 240/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 February 2023.

1. On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung on 7 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“ the Board ”) dated 28 March 2019.

Case No.CACV 240/2022[2023] HKCA 248
Court
Court of Appeal
Date27 Feb 2023
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 240/2022

[2023] HKCA 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 240 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1087 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN
  KURUPPU ARACHCHI APPUHAMILAGE Applicant
  DON KAPILA ASANKA  
  and  
  TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE		 Putative
Respondent
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative
    Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Chow JA and S T Poon Jin Court
Date of Written Submissions: 26 October 2022
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2023

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung on 7 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 28 March 2019.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 18 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable”.

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal 		(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The Applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person.