Rahman Moksudur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 515/2021

[2022] HKCA 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 515 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1648 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:  18 May 2022

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 2 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge P Li on 16 November 2021 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 April 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“With due respect and humble submissions I beg to you that I am not agree with decision of the court, that’s why I don’t accept the decision of the appeal for Judicial Review, because the decision maker did not consider my appeal of Judicial Review. He just denied my appeal simply. He did not scrutinize my written appeal properly. So this decision is not fair and it made me unhappy and disappointed me about my life safety. If I return back to my home country I will be killed by my enemy. But the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration did not scrutinize my claim properly.”

3.The Applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of the application, notwithstanding the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 12 April 2022.

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