Re Okpala Chinedu Francis Alias Camara Joseph

CAMP 564/2021, [2024] HKCA 624

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 564 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 980 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 20 March 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 13 March 2024 (“the Judgment”)  ([2024] HKCA 224). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang (“the Judge”)  dated 11 November 2020, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 2695).

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.  We will also adopt herein the abbreviations used in the Judgment.  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 filed on 20 March 2024, the applicant only stated:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. There were not provide me any legal assistance when I was ledge my appeal in (TCAB). This is unfair to me. I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 April 2024.  In those submissions he complained about the lack of language assistance in relation to his BOR2 risk claim and that the Judgment was not fair.  He further complained that the court and the authorities had been negligent and failed to perform to the standard duty of care that was specifically targeted at non-refoulement claimant like him and that he was thus discriminated against and placed at a disadvantageous position.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  He has failed to give any proper ground of appeal or identify any specific error in the Judgment.  His allegations are all general, vague and bare without any specific particulars or evidence in support.

7.In particular, the decision under challenge in the present judicial as stated by the applicant in his Form 86 was the decision refusing late filing of his appeal against the Director’s 1^st Decision, which assessed the applicant’s claim on the grounds of torture risk, BOR3 and persecution.  The applicant did not appeal against the Director’s 2^nd Decision to the Board refusing his non-refoulement claim on the basis of BOR2 risk and this decision was not under challenge in the present judicial review.  Insofar as the Judge having taken his own initiative to consider the Director’s 2^nd Decision, we see no error in the Judge’s decision.

8.More importantly, as stated at [25] of the Judgment, it is trite that the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Cucan Fatimah v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2019] HKCA 1264 at [20].  Further, all the court documents filed in the court below and this court were written in English.  It shows that either the applicant is conversant with the English language or he has access to language assistance of his own if he finds it necessary.  It is therefore clear that the applicant is not in any way prejudiced.  The applicant fails to point out with specific particulars any errors in the Judgment.  His assertions have no merit.

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

10.Accordingly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal, 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.

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

The applicant acting in person