Re Gurung Mansingh

CACV 351/2024, [2025] HKCA 643

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 351 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1070 OF 2024)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 3 January 2025, this court (Chow JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 22 August 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejecting his subsequent non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 7 January 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, he repeats his complaint of a lack of language and legal assistance. He complains that this court did not discuss the errors in the decisions of the Board and the Director or address the issues he raised in the appeal. He also complains that he was not fully informed of his rights, and says that his case should be reconsidered in an oral hearing.

4.The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 21 January 2025. In the written submissions, he essentially asserts that there was unfairness and unreasonableness in the determination of his case at different stages of the proceedings due to the lack of language and legal assistance. He also asserts that our judgment is illogical.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. His complaint about lack of legal and language assistance has been dealt with at paragraph 16 of our judgment dated 3 January 2025 and it has no substance. Despite ample opportunities given to him, he has failed to show he was inhibited or hampered from advancing any particular point or ground throughout the determination of his non-refoulement claim by reason the alleged lack of legal or language assistance. The other complaints are general assertions without particulars, and have no merit. In particular, as for the complaint that he was not fully informed of his rights, he has failed to identify what particular right(s) he was unaware of, and how his case might have been determined differently had he been aware of any such right(s).

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 7 January 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person