Raj and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 192/2021

[2022] HKCA 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 192 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2030 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 18 January 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 14 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 13 September 2018.

2.The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 26 January 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“… It is my humble request to you that I have problem in my own country please given me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case...”

3.In the written submissions of the 1^st Applicant dated 7 February 2022, she repeats the basis of the Applicants’ 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.

7.For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants’ application a nullity.

The Applicants, unrepresented, acted in person