SUJAN GAZI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 171/2018

[2018] HKCA 749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 910 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the decision of the Court) :

1.  On 15 August 2018, this Court handed down the judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 11 May 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) who had rejected his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 27 August 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that :

‘ - There is no substantial grounds for refusing the applicant’s Court of Appeal application.

- On the strength of the grounds has not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer in due of fearing.

- The applicant … did not have enough time to address the bundle.

- Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.’

4.  The applicant’s supporting affirmation dated 27 August 2018 stated that :

‘ …I am totally disagree the Judgment from the Court of Appeal which is attached…The Judgment is unreasonable and unfair to me. As an uneducated person I just follow the advice from the …persons [sic]. I do not agree with the Judgment dated 15/8/2018…’

5.  In non-compliance with the unless order of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 11 September 2018, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions by 20 September 2018.  This appeal is now determined on the applicant’s Notice of Motion and his supporting affirmation.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) provides that :

‘ 22. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court (Court of Final Appeal)-…

(b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, 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 for decision…’  (emphasis added)

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the application is dismissed.