Ahmed Mehraj v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petiton Office

CACV 229/2021

[2021] HKCA 1577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 229 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2979 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  20 October 2021

Date of Judgment:  3 November 2021

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 24 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 27 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 December 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he does not want to go back to his home country because his life is still in danger there. He also says that the Judge was wrong to accept the Board’s finding(s).  His written submissions dated 20 October 2021 merely set out some general propositions of law, and state that the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his credibility.

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance.

5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person