GURDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 34/2022

[2023] HKCA 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1901 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 20 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 5 January 2022 refusing to grant them leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed (inter alia) the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 October 2016 rejecting their non-refoulement claim.

2.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 9 December 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to request for Court of Final. There is some eror in my decision maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision of the Director of Immigration and as well the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my case has been determined fairlly.” [sic]

3.  In her written submissions dated 22 December 2022, the 2^nd Applicant repeated her complaint about the lack of language assistance (which was dealt with at §§12 and 14 of the CA Judgment), and made a general complaint about the lack of “sound judgment and fairness” throughout the non-refoulement claim process without any further particulars or elaboration.

4.  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.

5.  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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. 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.

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

7.  For the avoidance of doubt, the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 3^rd Applicant’s application a nullity.