ABBAS RAEES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 207/2024, [2025] HKCA 286

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1676 &

[2024] HKCFI 2740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 207 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1716 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 9 July 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an 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 14 June 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 29 January 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 3 March 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 6 March 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that his life will become uncertain if he returns to his home country, and requests for legal and language assistance for his appeal.

4.  In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 6 March 2025 filed in support of the present application, the Applicant alleges, inter alia, that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and irrational, and the Board failed to give sufficient reason for dismissing his appeal, erred in law, acted in a procedurally unfair manner, failed to consider humanitarian grounds, and excluded significant aspects of the evidence on the ground that the evidence was hearsay. These are all general allegations without particulars.

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. 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.