Khan Ajab v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 91/2022, [2023] HKCA 1209

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 91 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 761 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

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’s 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 application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 August 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 5 September 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there was some error in law in his decision, and that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information but the actual situation was different.  He said that the officials and the courts ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach and was not reasonable.

3.In his written submissions lodged on 19 September 2023, the applicant merely set out certain passages from previous decided cases and statutes without explaining how they were relevant to his case.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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