Comlan Ayikoe Akpenamawu v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 180/2020

[2021] HKCA 340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 180 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 248 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA, P Ng and S T Poon JJ in Court

Date of Written Submission:  10 December 2020

Date of Judgment:  20 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 23 December 2020, this court (Barma JA, P Ng and S T Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 10 June 2020 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 decisions 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 5 January 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I’d like to challenge the decision dated the 23^rd of December 2020.” (sic)

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 15 January 2021.  Because the written submission was not written in English or Chinese and therefore not written in one of the official languages (section 3(1) of the Official Languages Ordinance, Cap 5), we have not given any weight to the written submission.

5.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.

6.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.  

7.The applicant did not identify any ground in the Notice of Motion and because of the reasons above, his written submission is not given any weight.  The applicant has failed to give any ground for the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In our view, the application is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 5 January 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.