BUI QUANG HUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 147/2021

[2021] HKCA 1799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 147 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 672 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 20 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 18 September 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 11 April 2019.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 26 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“1 The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Leave for Judicial Review and the Appeal; and

2 The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director.”

3.  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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.  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.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.