|
CAMP 14/2022
[2022] HKCA 1365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 14 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2600 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
MIRAJ |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 23 August 2022
Date of Judgment: 26 September 2022
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 26 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for “leave to appeal” against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 29 July 2020 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 September 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 9 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant contends that:
“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.
2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.
3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, where were favor on rejecting my claim.
4. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.
5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.”
3. In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 23 August 2022, he sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but has failed to explain how those principles are relevant to his case.
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 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.
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. The complaints raised in the Notice of Motion are general assertions and have no substance. 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.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|