Gallego Valdes Augusto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 115/2022

[2025] HKCA 612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 115 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 398 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 February 2023, 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 6 February 2023 (“the Judgment”) ([2023] HKCA 116). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J. dated 15 March 2022, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 709).

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. 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, the applicant stated:

“The grounds are as follows:

1) There is an error in the decision. The decision maker just relied on the Country of Origin Information (‘COI’) which only favours the rejection of my claim. As the actual situation is different from the COI.

2) The immigration officer and the High Court have overlooked the evidence of violence towards the minorities in Hong Kong. Also, the Board has significantly relied on the news the source of which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay. The lack of credible information has resulted in groundless speculations.”

5.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

6.In our view, his application is wholly without substance. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant only repeated those grounds he previously submitted before this Court which had already been considered and rejected by this Court: see the Judgment at [11] to [17]. More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars. Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal is a non-starter and plainly has no merit.

7.Further, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, 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.

9.For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The Applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person.