Re Kumarohand Another

CAMP 311/2021

[2023] HKCA 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 311 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1646 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 19 January 2023, this court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 71) dismissing the applicants’ application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 11 December 2019 refusing their application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non‑refoulement claims.

2.On 26 January 2023, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission in support of the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 applicants’ claims 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 did not set out any specific grounds of appeal. It only stated that the applicants are very sacred as their claims and court cases had been rejected, so they want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.In her written submission, the 1^st applicant reiterated that her family wants to kill her after learning she has formed a relationship with a Nepali man and given birth to a baby in Hong Kong. She also asserted that there were errors in the processing of her claim, and she wants the Court of Final Appeal to consider her case. She, however, did not specify what the errors were, nor give any particulars for them.

8.We are of the view that what was put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person