Majharul Islam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 498/2021, [2024] HKCA 234

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 498 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3004 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 Bangladesh 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 8 February 2024.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 19 February 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant merely stated that he did not get justice and wants to go to the CFA.

3.The applicant’s written submissions set out the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim and the history of the proceedings but give no reason for his present application other than that he wants to go to the CFA and speak in the interests of all asylum seekers.

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