Bukenya Ronald v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 115/2024, [2024] HKCA 959

On An Intended Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2391 &

[2024] HKCFI 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 115 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1482 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 21 September 2023, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 February 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 5 September 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In a document titled “Notice of Intended Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal” attached to the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he disagrees with the Judgment, alleging, inter alia, that (i) his case has enormous merits, (ii) his life would be in grave danger if he is refouled back to Uganda, because he would be harmed or killed by his late girlfriend’s father and/or by the police in Uganda, (iii) the Director, the Board and the Court have underestimated the danger and serious life threat to him, (iv) the Judges paid little attention to his evidence and acted in contravention of procedural fairness, (v) the Director, the Board and the Court have failed to consider that his name and photograph were published in the “police Appeal on newspaper” and “such steps from the authorities would definitely render [any] chances of relocation and state protection untenable because [he] had been declared unwanted in Uganda”, (vi) he does not believe that the court “had adopted [an] enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the lower tiers”, and (vii) the Board has failed to consider “all the evidence of Human Right violation made available via (COI) records”.

4.In his written submissions dated 4 October 2024 lodged in support of the application, the Applicant essentially repeats his aforesaid allegations in a summary form.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

7.No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant’s allegations are bare, general assertions without particulars, and/or new points not previously raised in his appeal. He has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person