Ta Duy Tham v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 111/2021

[2022] HKCA 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 111 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 487 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  6 December 2021

Date of Judgment:  18 January 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 15 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 9 March 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 dated 11 January 2019.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 2 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants repeats his claim for non-refoulment protection, and complains that (i)  it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled in its judgment that he had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and (ii)  the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.In his written submissions dated 6 December 2021, the Applicant gives some background information, repeats his claim for non-refoulment protection and his complaint that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights, and sets out some general principles of public law relating to non-refoulement claims.

4.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.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 Appeal Ordinance.

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

The Applicant, acting in person