|
CACV 242/2022
[2023] HKCA 249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 242 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 939 OF 2019)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
ABANDO ERVIN DICK PELAGIO |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and S T Poon J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
28 October 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
27 February 2023 |
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung on 9 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 26 March 2019.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 17 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:
“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable”.
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.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The Applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person.
|