Re Penol Agustino Pasmanero

CACV 581/2018

[2019] HKCA 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 581OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 500/2018)

_________________

_________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 2 April 2019[1] (“Judgment”), this court dismissed the abovenamed applicant’s appeal from Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam’s decision dated 11 December 2018[2] refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeals Board (“Board”)’s decision dated 9 March 2018 in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 8 April 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The notice of motion read as follows:

“I would like to get the permission to appeal my case to Court of Final Appeal. As non Hong Kong citizen, I can only speak Tagalog. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

3.By written submission filed on 23 April 2019, the applicant advanced 10 paragraphs of grounds of appeal. 

4.Paragraphs 5 to 10 which appear on the page bearing the applicant’s signature are baffling.  They mentioned a “former husband” who vowed to kill the applicant, domestic violence against women, inability of the state in protecting women, difficulty in getting a divorce or annulment in a Catholic country like the Philippines and the applicant having 2 children who are Hong Kong permanent residents but who are not borne by the applicant’s “husband”.  These are not the facts of this case as previously presented by the applicant.  As summarised in paragraph 2 of the Judgment, the applicant is a 39 year old Filipino male seeking non-refoulement protection because of a fear of harm from his former business partner, Angelo, who is thought to be powerful because he is the nephew of a mayor.

5.That leaves paragraphs 1 to 4, by which the applicant suggested that it would be dangerous for him to return to the Philippines because it is fraught with, and notorious for, unlawful ‘extrajudicial” killings by the police and armed individuals; the Philippines is “currently run by a dictatorial presidential (sic) elected by the Public” who has “failed in his accountability”; and the President of the Philippines had announced in 2017/2018 that the Philippines was withdrawing from the International Criminal Court with immediate effect.  These had nothing to do with the case run by the applicant before the Director of Immigration or the Board.  As stated above, the fear he previously put forward was that of being harmed by Angelo.  Although he had refrained from reporting any of the incidents inciting fear in him to the police in the Philippines out of his personal belief that the police would favour Angelo because his uncle is a mayor, the applicant made no allegation that the police was involved in any of the said incidents.

6.The applicant has not by his notice of motion or written submission identified any issue of great, general or public importance that should be submitted for determination by the CFA.  The statutory criteria laid down in s 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) is thus not met.

7.Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb under s 22(1)(b).  In addition to the matters discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, the dismissal of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim turned on the Board’s finding of availability of internal relocation alternatives within the Philippines.  Such finding was supported by the applicant’s own agreement with the Board (1) that Angelo would not be aware of his return to the Philippines if he should live in Manila which, as the Board noted, is far from the applicant’s hometown, has a very large population and was where the applicant had lived for a period of time before coming to Hong Kong; and (2) that he would not suffer any hardship from living in Manila.  In the circumstances, the applicant cannot now turn around to complain in paragraph 1 of his written submission that by relocating, he would live like a fugitive on the run which would infringe his right to live a dignified life. 

8.For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person