RAYMOND PROMISE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 221/2024, [2025] HKCA 148

On Appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 221 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1370 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 28 May 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant to 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 18 August 2017, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 24 June 2016 and 5 May 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 3 January 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the said order of the Judge. 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 13 January 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges generally that there were some errors of law in the decision(s), and the decisions to refuse his application were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or were the result of procedural errors or unfairness. He also alleges that the Putative Respondent failed to “meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants” [sic].

4.  In his written submission filed in support of the present application dated 27 January 2025, the Applicant says that his case was not determined fairly, he does not know how his case was determined because he was never provided with proper legal and language assistance, and there was a breach of procedural fairness on the Putative Respondent’s part in the following aspects:

“(A) The Respondent’s had unlawfully fettered his discretion by refused my appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements.

(B) The Adjudicator acted in a procedural unfairness in dealing with my appeal.

(C) The Respondent’s decisions to refuse my appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or are a result of procedural errors or unfairness.

(D) The Respondent’s failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-Represented claimants.” [sic]

The Applicant also alleges that the “authorities” have acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants in order to achieve a quick disposal of their claims.

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 intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. The complaint that he was not provided with legal or language assistance is a new complaint which was not previously raised in his application before the Judge or in his appeal to the Court of Appeal. In any event, it is well-established that such complaint has no merit. The allegations of procedural unfairness and discrimination are nothing more than bare, general assertions without particulars, and have likewise no merit. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has 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.