AKPO EMMANUEL KWAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 504/2021

[2023] HKCA 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 504 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2274 OF 2018)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  On 2 March 2022, the Court of Appeal (Chow JA and Lisa Wong J) gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 5 November 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated on 1 December 2017, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 17 January 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 13 April 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“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 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.” [sic]

3.  In his written submissions dated 26 April 2022, 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 case. The Applicant also fails to identify any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

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.