Tabingan Julius Kidao v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 169/2024, [2024] HKCA 1107

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 169 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1506 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

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 Philippine national 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 4 October 2024.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 15 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In the grounds of appeal attached to that document, and repeated in his written submissions lodged on 29 October 2024, the applicant essentially repeated his case as to the risks of harm he faced in the Philippines, and stated that internal relocation was not a viable option for him.

3.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.

4.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.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person