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

CAMP 208/2022

[2022] HKCA 1398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 208 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 539 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 26 August 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 To dated 19 January 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 April 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 29 August 2022 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 want to return to his home country because his life is still in danger there. He complaints that the learned Judge failed to consider all applicable grounds of his non-refoulement claim, including Articles 2 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and the learned Judge’s decision that the Board’s decision was without fault was irrational.

3.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the present application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 29 August 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 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 Applicant’s complaints mentioned in the Notice of Motion are bare assertions without any particulars, 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.