Re Paul Moore Hyginus Tochukwu

CACV 116/2023, [2024] HKCA 545

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 835 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.On 22 April 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 18 April 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 333). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 11 April 2023, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 789).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD DISMISSED MY NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIM. SPECIALY APPEAL BOARD DID MANY ERROR WHEN HE TOOK DECISSION FOR ME. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE FROM THE HIGH COURT AND FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 6 May 2024.  In those submissions, he merely repeated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim in vague and general terms.

6.In our view, there is no merit in his application.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  He also fails to give any specific particulars as to any errors in the Judgment.  His allegations do not constitute proper grounds of appeal and are in any event devoid of merit.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, the applicant’s allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person