|
CACV 250/2024, [2024] HKCA 978
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 99 OF 2020)
-----------------------
| RE: |
CAMARA IDRISSA |
Applicant |
-----------------------
| Before : |
Hon Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J in Court |
| Date of Judgment : |
29 October 2024 |
-----------------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------------
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (‘the Judge’) of 11 June 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 October 2024. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 13 August 2024, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 23 September 2024 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of Republic of Guinea. He entered Hong Kong on 28 February 2018. The applicant overstayed. On 26 March 2018, the applicant made a non-refoulement claim[1].
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by unknown perpetrators who had killed his parents in their home[2].
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [6].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 27 August 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
4) The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 10 September 2018[4]. After a hearing held on 16 December 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 30 December 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [10].
5) Decision of the Judge
9. The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation but no ground for seeking relief was provided, see the decision of the Judge at [11].
10. The Judge held that in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness there was no reasonably arguable basis for the intended judicial review challenge. The Board rejected the applicant’s claim essentially on its adverse finding on credibility. The applicant was unable to show that there is any prospect of success in his intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision, see the decision of the Judge at [11]-[16].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :
‘ The point in my case was ignored and the Decision were not transparent.’
12. We take the view that these are bare allegations with no further explanation as to how it is helpful to the applicant’s appeal.
7) Our view
13. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
14. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.
15. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Lisa Wong) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [8];
[2] Board’s Decision at [16], [73]; Director’s Decision at [2], [6];
[3] Director’s Decision at [9]-[11];
[4] Board’s Decision at [15];
|