SEBIANO DONDIE VALDEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 175/2024, [2024] HKCA 1108

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 175 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1578 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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 national of the Philippines 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 9 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he disagreed with the decisions so far which he said were based on web news not officially recognised.  He said the Board fettered its discretion and acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his appeal.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant said that he did not think his case had been determined fairly, that he was not provided with proper legal and language assistance, and that the Board acted in breach of procedural fairness.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.