Re Saha Sajon

CACV 133/2019

[2020] HKCA 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 133 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1568/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  7 May 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 10 September 2019, this court (Lam VP, Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 8 March 2019 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 rejecting his 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 dated 16 September 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I am not satisfy at all for [the judgment], so I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal, I wish the Court of Final Appeal will give a good decision for me.

The court of appeal judges failed to find my problem which one I write to the court of appeal. I wrote many procedural error and error of law of the Board of Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. I cannot understand why the honourable judge failed to catch all those error.

So I am bound to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  On my submission I will write everything and great interest of the motion”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 30 September 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant identified a number of alleged errors committed by the Board and the Director.  He also explained why it is unsafe for him to return.

5.On 8 November 2019, the applicant lodged a supplemental written submission without leave.  As stated in the order by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 17 September 2019, any further written submission lodged without leave would not be considered, and we have not had regard to this further written submission.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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.

7.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.  

8.The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground for judicial review or appeal. Further, the complaints against the Board and the Director do not identify any error in our judgment and are therefore not valid grounds of appeal.

9.Lastly, the applicant alleged that this court has overlooked the grounds he relied on but he has not given any particulars for those grounds.  We have in fact given reasons at [14] of our judgment for dismissing the sole ground of appeal identified at [10] of our judgment.

10.In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

12.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 16 September 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person