RE NWOKEDIKE AUCHI PETER

CAMP 199/2022, [2024] HKCA 396

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 199 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2580 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.  On 17 April 2023, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA) handed down the decision ([2023] HKCA 531) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 2 September 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 20 April 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged written submission by the stipulated deadline.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)(Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The applicant stated the following in the notice of motion :

‘ Director of Immigration dismissed my nonrefoulement claim. Adjudicator of Torture Claims Board too dismissed. The High Court and the Court of Appeal did not grant my leave. I did not get justice. To get justice I want to go to Court of Final Appeal.’

7.  In brief the applicant stated the following in his written submission :

1)  He raised the non-refoulement claim on the basis that if refouled he will be killed by social group of the local community.

2)  He told his story to the Director and his case officer did not like his claim.

3)  He went to the Board and the Adjudicator also dismissed his claim.

4)  He applied for leave for judicial review.  Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed his claim.

5)  He wants to go to Court of Final Appeal.

6)  He will speak for the great interest of all asylum seekers.

8.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.