Re Galiza Gomer Dadis

CAMP 186/2019

[2020] HKCA 664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 186 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 100 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 11 June 2020

Date of Judgment: 11 August 2020

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 21 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 324), this Court (Yeung VP and Pang JA) dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) given on 24 April 2019 in HCAL 100/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 16 January 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 23 May 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 1 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I want to reject the decision made by the Immigration Department. While the Judge says that “the Adjudicator engaged in a joint endeavour with the applicant and considered all relevant criteria…she gathered a considerable amount of information…”  But she failed to consider the problems within the local context.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 June 2020, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 11 June 2020 in which he advanced the following grounds:

(1)  The Board’s decision was erroneous as it was insensitive to the applicant’s case and the situation in the Philippines.  He would face grave danger if he were to return to his country.  The Board overlooked or was misguided into believing that the Philippines, like Hong Kong, has rule of law.  In fact, in the Philippines law cannot really protect him. 

(2)  The court should consider whether the assessor fully understood his problems in the Philippines when assessing his case.

(3)  There are some human rights reports stating that the Philippines is fraught with unlawful and extrajudicial killing by police and armed individuals.  As such, he would not be safe to return to the Philippines.

(4)  The Director did not believe that he would possibly lose his life if he were to return to the Philippines.  In fact, the Philippines is notorious for police extrajudicial killings.  The Philippines government and the people in power can exercise brutal measure when they want to and they are protected by the government.  

4.The Registrar had also directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.None of the grounds set out in the written submissions sought to challenge or pinpoint any error of law or procedure in our judgment and therefore, they are not viable grounds of appeal.  Further, since the applicant failed to advance any grounds of appeal before the Judge at the hearing for leave to appeal out of time below and before us in renewing the application, we are not prepared to entertain any new arguments that are fact-and-evidence sensitive which have not been canvassed before and for which leave has not been sought within time: see Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 160; United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [40] and [41].

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 21 May 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

8.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.