|
CAMP 244/2022
[2022] HKCA 1671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 244 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 103 OF 2019)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
LY RAHAMANE |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 13 October 2022
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2022
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 30 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 14 December 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 22 October 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 April 2018.
2. By Notice of Motion dated 3 October 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows:
“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. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming 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. In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 13 October 2022, he set out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but failed to explain how those principles were relevant or applicable to his case.
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.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|