RE ALAMAN JEROME VILLA

CACV 47/2022

[2022] HKCA 1028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 47 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 475 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the Court):

1.  On 25 May 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Lisa Wong J)  judgment of 13 May 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 635). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 18 January 2022, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 139).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“We are setting out motion to appeal on the grounds that lower court judges fails to consider the risk of life factor and assessment is too rush to see my actual grounds of risk to life under the BOR if I return back to Philippines.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 16 June 2022.  In particular, in those submissions, he stated that:

“It stated in BOR and CIDTP that life in danger with be on individual feelings and apprehension I if I back to my country in the Philippines. and that is the grounds never heard as the lover courts only rely on prima facie evidence rather than circumstance evidence base on my statement e.g.” (sic)

6.  In our view, his intended appeal is wholly without merit.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are vague and bare assertions and do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.  His intended appeal must fail on this basis alone.

7.  Further, as stated at [15] of the Judgment, assessment of evidence, Country of Origin materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director)  as primary decision makers.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak[2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman[2019] HKCA 50 at [11].

8.  In any event, the applicant’s contentions are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.  Accordingly, he failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 25 May 2022 is dismissed.