Mallare Lauro Magbitang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 160 /2024, [2025] HKCA 828

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 160 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1307 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 26 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1096). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 11 April 2024 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 13 December 2024.  It was further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction.  The applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline.  Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Analysis and disposition

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

4.The applicant only stated in his Notice of Motion that he does not agree with the judgment, without identifying any particular mistakes or unfairness in our judgment.  He also failed to raise any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

5.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 29 November 2024.