YUSUK PRAWIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 119/2023, [2023] HKCA 1208

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 119 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1689 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 22 August 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 28 August 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the judges were wrong in not having applied “the principle of procedural unfairness” and “the principle of irrationality” to the Director’s decision. He said that there was some error of law, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information whereas the actual situation was different, and that the officials and courts had ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. He also said the judge did not apply the law properly and that there was procedural unfairness. He added that his life would be in danger if he returned to his country

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 13 September 2023, the applicant merely set out certain passages from previous decided cases without explaining how they are relevant to his present application.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.