Re Ezedianyinma Patrick Obinna

CACV 195/2020

[2021] HKCA 1127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 195 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 297/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 17 August 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 1 April 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2021] HKCA 438), dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) dated 9 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 which rejected 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.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a notice of motion filed on 28 April 2021, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the ground that:

“[The Director and the Board] cancel my claim of non refoulement. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review, but I have no way to return my home. I did not get justice, I wish the Court of Final Appeal will give me justice.”

In the written submission lodged on 10 May 2021 in support of the application, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the notice of motion and explained why it is unsafe for him to return.

4.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.

5.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.  

6.The only ground advanced by the applicant is that it is unsafe for him to return. He did not identify any error in our judgment or the decision by the judge.  He has thus failed to identify any viable ground of appeal. 

7.As for the bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return, the Board had already held that he may safely relocate to the southern part of Nigeria.  The applicant failed to substantiate any public law error in the Board’s Decision to challenge this finding.

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 28 April 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person