Re Touray Nfamara

CACV 191/2023, [2024] HKCA 100

On Appeal from [2023] HKCA 1287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 191 OF 2023

(On appeal from HCAL 870/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 23 November 2023 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against the judgment dated 15 November 2023[1] of this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  (“Judgment”).  By the Judgment, this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 13 June 2023[2]by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 15 February 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper on the basis of the written materials filed with the court without an oral hearing.  We agree that paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”)  or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to the CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant barely asserted in the notice of motion that he did not get justice from the Court of First Instance or the CA and that he wants to go to the CFA for justice.

5.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1 and the specific direction given on 7 December 2023 by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not filed any written submission.

Discussion and disposition

6.We have given detailed reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of leave for judicial review.  See [19]-[24] of the Judgment.  The applicant has made no attempt to engage any of our reasons.

7.The applicant has plainly not identified any specific error in the Judgment that raises any, or any arguable, issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

8.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b)  for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person