MILON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 342/2024, [2025] HKCA 285

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 342 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 205 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 30 July 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan 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 13 January 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 July 2019 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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

3.  By Notice of Motion together with his affirmation both dated 20 February 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 he does not agree with the CA Judgment. He repeats his assertion that his life will be at risk if he is removed from Hong Kong to his home country. He also alleges that his claim was not scrutinized properly, and the decision is unfair. In his affirmation, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal, and he still has problem in his home country.

4.  The Applicant has failed to file any written submission in support of the present application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 20 February 2025.

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.