RE HIKKADUWA GALAPPATHTHIGE SARANGA MANOJ KUMARA GALAPPATHTHI

CACV 20 /2025, [2025] HKCA 875

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 20 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2247 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 June 2025.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 7 July 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant stated he was waiting for his dependent visa and had three children to care for in Hong Kong. 

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 18 July 2025, the applicant stated that it was difficult to obtain any supporting documents for his local authorities and that he was waiting for a decision from the Immigration Department regarding his dependent visa applications. 

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

CACV 20/2025, [2025] HKCA 571

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2247 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 3 January 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.  Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly, the Court would deal with this appeal on paper based on the documents available.

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. He last arrived in Hong Kong from the Mainland on foot in April 2005 but he overstayed. He was arrested in May 2006. In November 2013, the applicant raised his non-refoulement claim by written signification[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if he returns he would be harmed or killed by the applicant’s political opponents. The applicant belonged to a rival political party.

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4]-[8].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against persecution except torture[2] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board[3]. After a hearing held on 24 June 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 26 July 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [11]-[14].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation, but he did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s decision[4].

10.  The Judge held that the Board’s decision was legitimate based upon the facts of the applicant. The applicant raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s decision. There was no reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s decision[5].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘I am writing this grounds regarding my present situation. Still I have problem in my country for me. Therefore I was worried and start peaceful life in Hong Kong and I have 2 children for me in my oral hearing I will explain all.’

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu[2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person