Re Alagar Velautham

CAMP 306/2021

[2023] HKCA 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 306 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1811 OF 2018)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 3 August 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1131) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 9 July 2020 in which he refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 9 August 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.The Notice of Motion contains the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Failure to consider the fact I had raised my summons and my previous written submission that why I was late to file my Notice of Appeal, and the Court of First Instance (CFI) refused my extension of Appeal. I was stated that I haven’t any intension (sic) to delay late appeal. I wasn’t received the letter in my address in the meantime.

2. Failure to consider the country of origin condition that I would not save or free of risk in my country, true condition of my country situation is worse than ever, and I would face real risk upon refoulement.”

5.In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given on 9 August 2022, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 August 2022.  This Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing, which we consider appropriate.

6.In his written submissions, he said that even though he had explained his unintentional delay in taking out his application for an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision, his application was refused by this court.  He urged this court to grant him leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  He further complained that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board failed to adhere to high standards of fairness by making insufficient enquiries into the country of origin conditions in relation to his non-refoulement claim.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (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.

8.Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.     

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 9 August 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person