Shah Mohammed Kamaluddin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 56/2022

[2022] HKCA 1229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 56 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1471 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 21 July 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 8 December 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 26 July 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant contends that:

(1)     the Judges failed to apply the “principle of irrationality” to the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”);

(2)     the Judges failed to apply the principle of procedural fairness to the Director whereby he was required to give reasons justifying his decision;

(3)     there is some error of law in the decision of the decision-maker who just relied on COI (country of origin information) and previous facts which were in favour of rejecting his claim;

(4)     the “Judge” did not apply the law properly and there was procedural unfairness; and

(5)     the decision-maker failed to consider all aspects that were relevant to his case.

The Applicant also says that his life will be in danger in his home country.

3.In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 9 August 2022, he sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how they are relevant or applicable to his case.

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 Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final 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.The Applicant’s complaints raised in the Notice of Motion are vague and general, and cannot constitute any valid or viable grounds of appeal against the CA Judgment.  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