RE HUMAGAI INDRA PRASAD

CAMP 143/2020

[2021] HKCA 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 143 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 556/2018)

___________________

RE:

HUMAGAI INDRA PRASAD

Applicant

___________________

Before:

Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	21 June 2021
Date of Judgment:	22 July 2021

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 7 June 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 3 May 2021. In that judgment we refused to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 17 August 2020 refusing to extend time and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some error in my decision maker. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and the Torture Claim Appeal Board. This is toward to my life still in danger in my country origin.” [sic]

4.  In the Applicant’s submissions of 21 June 2021, he stated that the Torture Claims Appeal Board accepted hearsay evidence in the country of origin information but wrongly refused to accept his evidence.  He said the Board did not explain why it gave weight to the former but not the latter.  The Applicant also took issue with the Board not taking into account his poor ability to express himself when deciding that he was not credible.

5.  These were not the grounds previously advanced before the judge or this Court.  The Applicant did not explain why he did not raise these grounds before.  Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not the proper platform for grounds to be raised for the first time.

6.  In any event, these grounds have no merit.  As stated by judge at [10] and [16] of the Form CALL-1 of 17 August 2020, the Board did give adequate and proper reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s claim.

7.  In our judgment, the Applicant failed to raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment.  There is no question of great general or public importance or other reasons for which this matter ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.

(M H Lam)	(Aarif Barma)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal

The applicant acting in person

 

CAMP 143/2020

[2021] HKCA 581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 143 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 556/2018)

____________________

RE:

HUMAGAI INDRA PRASAD

Applicant

____________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 3 May 2021

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  As indicated in the directions of 11 March 2021, this Court will process this application as an application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of 17 August 2020 in HCAL 556/2018. By that decision, the Judge refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to apply for judicial review and dismissed his application.

2.  By a summons of 25 August 2020, the applicant made the present application to this court.  Notwithstanding the directions of 11 March 2021, he did not lodge submission to support his application.  We therefore proceed to consider the summons based on the materials already before the court as indicated in those directions.

3.  Though he would have been within time if he brought an appeal on 25 August 2020 and he did not require leave to bring such appeal (see H v Director of Immigration[2020] HKCFA 22, 14 July 2020), he did not do so. 

4.  He is now out of time.  Thus, we process this application as an application for extension of time.

5.  Since he did not file any affirmation or submission to account for his delay, we do not know if he was under the misapprehension that the previous practice (prior to the judgment in H v Director of Immigration, supra) of seeking leave was applicable. 

6.  In view of his lack of legal representation and the fact that H v Director of Immigration, supra was handed down shortly before his summons of 25 August 2020, we will give him the benefit of doubt in this regard.  We shall examine if there is any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal.  If there is, we shall grant extension of time. 

7.  We cannot see any merit in the intended appeal. As the judge pointed out in the CALL-1 Form ([2020] HKCFI 2005) at [11] and [15] there was no proper ground for seeking judicial review in his application. For the reasons given further at [16] to [18], his case has no merit.

8.  In the documents filed by the applicant before us (his summons and affirmation of 25 August 2020), there is also nothing to show that the judge erred in coming to his conclusion.  Apart from producing a copy of the CALL-1 Form, he only asserted of his life is in danger and he is not going back to his home country.

9.  In the circumstances, we refuse to grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be brought.  The summons of 25 August 2020 is dismissed accordingly.

 

 

(M H Lam) Vice President

(Aarif Barma) Justice of Appeal

Applicant acting in person