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

CAMP 137/2023, [2023] HKCA 932

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3040 &

[2023] HKCFI 301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 137 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2356 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 27 June 2023, 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 K W Lung dated 25 October 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 19 October 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 25 July 2016 and 22 December 2016 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 11 July 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant fails to identify any error in the CA Judgment, or raise any proper or valid ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

4.In his written submissions dated 25 July 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are applicable to his case.

5.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.

6.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.

7.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person