Akon Monir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 385/2021

[2022] HKCA 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 385 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1797 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 31 January 2022

Date of Judgment: 18 February 2022

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 29 December 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung’s order dated 16 September 2019 refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 13 August 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 17 January 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“Director of Immigration rejected my non refoulement claim. Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board too rejected my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismiss my [application] for leave. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 31 January 2022, he repeats his claim for non-refoulement protection, but has not identified any error in the CA Judgment.

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.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or 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