Re Masih Robin

CACV 586/2021, [2023] HKCA 1135

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 586 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 695 OF 2020)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 14 December 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1828) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 22 December 2021 in which he refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 11 January 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.The Notice of Motion contained the following as a ground of appeal:

“The court and the authorities have been negligent and failed to perform a standard duty of care that is specifically targeted as non-refoulement claimants like me. I am certain I am not the only one who does not understand the court procedures and yet has been discriminated against and was put at a disadvantage because of this.”

5.In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 11 January 2023, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 27 January 2023. He stated the following contentions in his written submissions:

(1)  Whilst it may be true that interpretation service does not need to be made available at all times to a non-refoulement claimant, it does not mean that the basic right of a litigant to understand the content of the process or the judgment can or should be deprived of.

(2)  In his case, no assistance has been given to him with regard to his BOR 2 risk claim and the authorities have failed to acknowledge this.

(3)  The lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should be investigated. Such misbehaviour should be corrected.

6.As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

8.The applicant failed to show in what respect he claims that the Court of Appeal’s decision is wrong in law and no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.By reason of the above, we will dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 11 January 2023.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person