Roshan Khan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 195/2022

[2022] HKCA 1596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 195 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 541 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  27 September 2022

Date of Judgment:  4 November 2022

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 4 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 29 April 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 22 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 July 2017.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant merely stated as follows: “I am late for apply due to lack of knowledge and insufficient sources.  Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case.”

3.In support of the application for leave to appeal, the Applicant lodged materially the same submissions dated 23 May 2022 that he had previously filed in support of his appeal.

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.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