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

CACV 273/2022

[2023] HKCA 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 273 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 922 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and K Yeung J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  16 and 28 December 2022

Date of Judgment:  1 February 2023

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 5 July 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 18 March 2019.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 December 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable”.

3.The Applicant filed his written submissions on 16 and 28 December 2022.  In his first set of submissions, the Applicant only recites certain authorities and makes some generic and non-specific submissions on the general legal principles applicable to non-refoulement claims.  He has failed to deal with the facts, and has failed to identify any error or question of law.  In his second set of submissions, he claims that the Director and the Board were wrong in rejecting his claim, and the Judge wrong in refusing him leave.  The Applicant has not pointed out any error in the CA Judgment.  He repeats that he faces serious life threat back home, and that if he is to be returned, he will be killed by his enemy.  He accepts that he has not submitted much documentary proof of his claim, and asks this Court to give him some more tome to submit documents.  He has not identified what those documents are going to be.

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 or written submissions.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “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.