Re Palao Ronald De Jesus

CAMP 66/2020

[2021] HKCA 903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 66 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1027 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

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

Date of Written Submissions:  20 April 2021

Date of Judgment:  5 July 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 30 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 350), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA)  refused to grant an extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 6 November 2019 in HCAL 1027/2018 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  given on 15 March 2017 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  given on 24 September 2015 and 10 May 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 9 April 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“This is my application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment dated 30 March 2021.  By the way of summons and my affidavit and my written submission, I were told that I did not receive the decision from the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  in my address, I had given in my Notice of Appeal Form.  I was late to file my leave application for judicial review out of time more than 12 months, although I realized it was my mistake and seek grant leave for my appeal.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 April 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 April 2021.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

4.In the written submissions, the applicant advanced the following:

“1….

2. I was late to submit my Judicial Review Application because I was not awareness about judicial system, it was fully my mistake because I don’t’ have any idea about appeal, I am seek pardon and apologies to this Court for being delay for my Appeal.

3. The Honourable Judge given order to refuse to extend the period the (sic)  me to make an Appeal to the Court of Appeal by the way of summons for leave to appeal because of I were late to file my Judicial review application from the date of the TCAB.

4. Failing to take into account relevant considerations / taking into account irrelevant consideration. When assessing a non-refoulement claim the Decision makers must pay due regard the applicable rules of law, have regard to all relevant matters and not to have regard to irrelevant matters.  It is submitted that the TCAB and the Director failed to take into account and / or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials which he should have, and hence his decision is illegal.  Specially, both failed to give due regard to:”

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.The applicant failed to pinpoint any error of law to reverse our judgment and nothing set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  As explained at [16] of our judgment, we were not satisfied that the applicant had provide any good reason to explain his substantial delay in applying for leave for judicial review.  More importantly, we found no merit in the applicant’s case.  As explained at [20] of our judgment, the Board had properly assessed the applicant’s case that he had not been subject to any torture in his home country and the risk of harm upon his return was assessed to be low.  We found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irregularities in the Board’s decision that would warrant our intervention and we found no merit in the applicant’s case.

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 30 March 2021, 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 the 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.