MD ALL MAMUN CHOWDHURY SHAMIM AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 369/2021

[2022] HKCA 1064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 369 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1784 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  On 2 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge To on 20 July 2021 refusing leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 6 June 2019.

2.  The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 9 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants state that they want to go to the Court of Final Appeal, but has not pointed to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.

3.  The Applicants have not filed any written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion, despite the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 9 June 2022.

4.  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 Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of 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.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

7.  For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of legal representation for the 3^rd Applicant in this appeal is treated as an irregularity without rendering his appeal a nullity.