AWAN ABDUL WAHAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 237/2023, [2024] HKCA 10

On Appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 237 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 994 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 25 July 2023, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 14 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 19 July 2016 and 21 December 2016 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 21 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 25 July 2023.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 1 December 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant makes some general allegations that the “decisions” are not reasonable or fair, and the “Judge” failed to give him sufficient time and chance to arrange relevant evidence to support his non-refoulement claim.

4.  In his written submissions dated 14 December 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant or applicable to his intended appeal.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  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.  The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

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