MBONYANA SIYANDA VICTOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 348/2023, [2024] HKCA 762

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 348 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1203 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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 is a South African national whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 29 May 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 4 June 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that there was some error of law in the decision, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts, but that the actual life situations are different, that the officials and the courts preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that the decision betrays a biased, formulaic and clearly unreasonable approach without fairly assessing the danger to his life.

3.  The written submissions of the applicant lodged on 12 June 2024 consist entirely of general statements of law, quotations from cases and statutes and bald assertions of procedural unfairness.

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.