MOHAMMED SAHABAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 65/2022

[2022] HKCA 1526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 65 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3014 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 21 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 8 September 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 24 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 29 January 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that:

“(a) the findings by the Learned Judge that the adjudicator’s decision to be without fault were irrational;

(b) the Learned Judge was wrong in accepting the [adjudicator’s] finding that ‘the only fact established is that the applicant is an Indian male, he faces no risk of any harm at all’ to conclude that the persecution risk failed.”

3.  In his written submissions dated 3 October 2022, the Applicant makes some general submissions on the law relating to non-refoulement claims, but fails to identify any proposed ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

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.  The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal was lodged late by 2 days. More significantly, 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.