Case Details

Citation

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, CACV 308/2019

Case Number

CACV 308/2019

Registry reference: CACV308A/2019

Court

Court of Appeal

(CA)

Decision Date

6 December 2019

Parties

Applicant(s):

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD, GALANG KYLER JOHAN RAFAEL a minor by his next friend and legal guardian, GALANG KOBE JOHN ANDREI a minor by his next friend and legal guardian

Respondent(s):

legal guardian 2nd Applicant (Appellant) GALANG KOBE JOHN ANDREI a minor by his next friend and legal guardian 3rd Applicant (Appellant) and TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Judges

Yuen
Lisa Wong
S T Poon JJ

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2019] HKCA 1358

Court of Appeal6 December 2019

Judges:YuenLisa WongS T Poon JJ

CACV308A/2019 MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 308/2019

[2019] HKCA 1358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 308 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1680 OF 2018)

_____________________

BETWEEN

	MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD	1^st Applicant (Appellant)
	GALANG KYLER JOHAN RAFAEL a minor by his next friend and legal guardian	2^nd Applicant (Appellant)
	GALANG KOBE JOHN ANDREI a minor by his next friend and legal guardian	3^rd Applicant (Appellant)
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Yuen JA, Lisa Wong and S T Poon JJ in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	19 November 2019
Date of Judgment:	6 December 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1. This court (Hon Yuen JA, Lisa Wong and S T Poon JJ) handed down judgment on 30 October 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1194) dismissing the applicants’ appeal against an order of DHCJ Woodcock given on 25 June 2019 refusing their application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning their non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2. The applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 6 November 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Written submissions were lodged on 19 November 2019.

3. On 7 November 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4. The applicants stated the following in the Notice of Motion.

“The [High] Court’s judgement has underestimated my possibility of harmed should I return. I would like to appeal for the decision made by the Court. The Court ignores the early decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board which is a decision made disregarding the cultural context and the high possibility of death threat I am facing.” (sic)

5. The written submissions repeated the arguments in the skeleton submissions filed on 23 September 2019 in support of the applicants’ Notice of Appeal filed on 4 July 2019. These arguments had already been dealt with in detail by this court in paragraphs 13 – 13.2 of our judgment.

6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 6 November 2019 is dismissed.

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations

Appeal history