Indah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 334/2019

[2020] HKCA 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 334 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 525 OF 2018)

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

BETWEEN

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

Before:  Hon Cheung, Chu JJA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  30 December 2019

Date of Judgment:  28 May 2020

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This court (Chu JA and S T Poon J) handed down judgment on 11 December 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1362) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 19 July 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 17 December 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 30 December 2019.

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 19 December 2019, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not [having] applied the principle of irrationality of the decision made by the Director of Immigration on the day of 2019 [refusing] my application for judicial review.

2. There is same error in law in my decision, the decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were favour on rejecting my claim, actual [occur] different situation than mentioned COI information, officer and court prefers to [ignore] the [overwhelming] of the evidence of the violence towards [minorities] searching for [unrealistic silver lining].

3. Procedural unfairness.

4. The Judge did not apply the low proper.”(sic)

5.The grounds stated in the Notice of Motion are basically a repetition of the grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant in her appeal to this court.

6.In the written submissions the applicant repeated the contents of his skeleton submissions filed on 26 September 2019 in support of his appeal to this court, which have been summarized in paragraph 9 of our judgment.

7.The grounds and arguments of the applicant had already been dealt with by this court in paragraphs 12 to 14 of our judgment. 

8.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

9.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

10.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

12.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 17 December 2019 is dismissed.

The appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person.