RE NWACHUKWU IYKE UZOMA

CAMP 47/2019

[2019] HKCA 1252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 47 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 928 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 15 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 863), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 2 November 2018 in HCAL 928/2017 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 25 August 2017.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 21 August 2019, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some errors in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occurs different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The officer and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 September 2019.  In his written submissions, he set out some authorities in relation to the legal principle of ‘high standard of fairness’ and he also mentioned section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) but he did not elaborate how the said legal principle and provision would assist his case. 

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.  Here, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim on the issue of credibility and that he had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims under all applicable grounds.  As stated in [15] of our judgment, assessment of risk of harm and internal relocation are within the province of the Board and this Court would not intervene unless they are reversible on public law grounds.  We agreed with the Judge that there was no errors of law or procedure or irrationality in the Board’s decision and the applicant’s intended appeal is bound to fail. 

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.