Re Peradilla Felix Jr Bool

CACV 56/2021

[2021] HKCA 1698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 56 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2185 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 17 August 2021, this court (Barma JA and K Yeung J)  handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 2 February 2021 refusing to grant extension of time for his application for leave for judicial review and dismissing the application. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”)  rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, have been set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant states in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. In the judgment, the Honourable Judges gave his decision and dismissed my Notice of Appeal, that there is none genuine risk in my claim, I would like to say that the [Board] and the [Director] failed to do their duty without any inquiry and observation into country of origin.

2. Failure to consider my fear, that I had raised in my claim, my fear is genuine and true, I would be face real risk upon refoulement, the [Board] and the [Director] assessed my claim and stated that my fear is low level, but real is my life would be danger if I return to my country.”

4.The applicant on 6 September 2021 lodged written submissions in support of the application. 

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.In the written submissions, the applicant sets out certain alleged errors which he claims the Board and the Director have committed.  He then submits that “the Honourable judges support the [Board] Decision was improper, because they did not follow the high standard fairness for provide opportunity for my claim.”

7.Those submissions lack particulars, and have in our view no merits.

8.The applicant has otherwise failed, whether in the Notice of Motion or the written submissions, to identify any error in our judgment.  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.  

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

10.For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 August 2021 is dismissed.

The Applicant acting in person