MOHAMMED FAROOK MOHAMMED IFTHIKAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 217/2023, [2023] HKCA 1346

On Appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 217 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1257 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  On 3 July 2023, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant 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 29 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 2 September 2016 and 14 September 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 21 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 3 July 2023. 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 dated 24 November 2023, 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 still has problems in his country “by police department and some underworld members”, and he will try his best to obtain his documents as soon as possible before the oral hearing.

4.  In his written submissions dated 4 December 2023, the Applicant repeats his allegation that he still has problems in his home country, and sets out some background information relating to his claim for non-refoulement protection.

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 proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed 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 merits and 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.