Akhtar Muhammad Saeed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 290/2022, [2024] HKCA 1157

On Appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 290 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1074 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 15 July 2022, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung 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 19 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 May 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 8 March 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges, amongst other things, that (i) “the Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness …”, (ii) “the learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality …”, (iii) “[t]here is some error of law …”, (iv) “[a]ctual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information”, and (v) “[t]he Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness” [sic]. He also reiterates that he will be harmed or killed if he returns to his home country.

4.In the Applicant’s skeleton submissions filed in support of the application, he sets out some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but has not explained how they are relevant or applicable to his case.

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.Quite apart from the very substantial delay in the present application (for which we do not consider the Applicant has given any good explanation), 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 has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. His complaints are all bare allegations without particulars or substance. 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