Younus Mohammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 310/2022

[2023] HKCA 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 310 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1037 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 10 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 15 June 2022 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 (“the Board”) dated 8 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 8 October 2018.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 2 December 2022, the Applicant applies 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 Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non-refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. All [these] judgments are not good for me. I want to go to C.F.A.”

3.In his written submissions dated 16 December 2022, the Applicant states that he faces “life threat” in his home country, and alleges that there are many errors in the decisions of the Director and the Board, but fails to identify or particularise the alleged errors.  The Applicant has also failed to point to any alleged 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 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