Achhada Dilip G v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 435/2022, [2023] HKCA 830

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 435 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2368 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of India whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 19 May 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the judges were wrong in not having applied “the principle of irrationality” to the decision of the Director of Immigration, and that there is some error in law in the decision as the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts. He stated that the actual situation is different from the country of origin information and that courts and decision-makers have ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. In an affirmation filed with the motion, the applicant stated that there is a good ground of appeal that had not necessarily been considered, but he did not specify what ground it was.

3.In his written submissions for the present application, the applicant has set out certain passages from previous court decisions but has not explained how they apply to his case.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person