USMAN SOHAIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 327 /2023, [2025] HKCA 640

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 327 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 338 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 22 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1091). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 27 April 2023 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 December 2024.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in his Notice of Motion:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”);

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director whereby the Director was required to give reason justifying the decision.

4.  In his written submissions, he put forward further contentions which may be summarised as follows:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker;

(2)  The adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions in the present application are just bare assertions which are not supported by particulars or evidence.  The applicant failed to identify any particular mistakes in our judgment.  He also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  Therefore, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 4 December 2024.