Re Dumagsa Marcelo Calderon

CAMP 126/2020

[2021] HKCA 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 126 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1084 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yeung VP and Chu JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  5 July 2021

Date of Judgment:  10 August 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 10 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 790), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA)  refused to grant an extension of time to the applicant to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 4 December 2019 in HCAL 1084/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  given on 29 May 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  given on 3 June 2015 and 20 September 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 21 June 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He did not provide any ground except for saying that “I want to challenge the decision”.

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 21 June 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 5 July 2021.  In his written submissions, he repeated the background of his case as submitted before the Board and he said that he has settled well in Hong Kong with his wife and son and he feels safe here.  He urged the court to let him stay in Hong Kong as he does not want to separate from his family.

4.The Registrar further 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.The applicant failed to pinpoint any error or raise any discernible grounds of appeal to reverse our judgment and none of the matters raised in the notice of motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal is unarguable and bound to fail.

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 10 June 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.