Sakil Mohammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 571/2021

[2022] HKCA 1075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 571 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2886 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  30 June 2022

Date of Judgment:  18 August 2022

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 6 June 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 27 July 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 November 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claim Appeal Board rejected by my claim for non-refoulement. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my application for leave. I am not totally satisfied. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.In his written submissions dated 30 June 2022, the Applicant repeats the facts of his claim, but has not pointed to any alleged specific 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 the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, 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