Hemba Waduge Nishantha Janaka Kalyanarathna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 446/2022, [2023] HKCA 480

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 446 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 176 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 27 February 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 28 October 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 April 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 10 March 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In the Notion of Motion and the Applicant’s written submissions dated 23 March 2023, the Applicant repeats that his life will be in danger if he goes back to his home country, and says that he needs time to translate some documents, which he wishes to submit in support of his non-refoulement claim, from Sinhalese into English. The Applicant fails to identify any ground of appeal or point to any error in the CA Judgment.

4.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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

5.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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

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

The Applicant, acting in person