HUSSAIN MUJADAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 98/2023, [2023] HKCA 1293

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3196 &

[2023] HKCFI 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 98 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2373 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

___________________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________________

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

1.  On 18 October 2022, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant 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 24 August 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 December 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 27 October 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the Order. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 31 October 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“Director decision and adjudicators decision was not correct and had many error of proceding. The High Court and the Court of Appeal did not give justice. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.” [sic]

4.  In his written submissions dated 13 November 2023, the Applicant repeated the underlying basis of his non-refoulement claim, and reiterated that he wanted to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. 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.