RE ALOM

CACV 5/2021

[2021] HKCA 1690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2358 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 11 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA)  judgment of 27 September 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1423). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang dated 23 December 2020 refusing to grant to the applicant leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 3080).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant asserted that he did not agree with the Judgment as it was unfair.  He further asserted that high standards of fairness were required in a determination of torture claims and the learned Judge reviewed the matter lightly.  Finally, he asserted that the decision had the effect of finally disposing of his appeal and making him liable to be removed from Hong Kong.

5.  On 25 October 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions.  In his written submissions, he contended that the learned Judge was wrong for not having applied the principles of irrationality and procedural fairness to the decision made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  He also asserted that “high standards of fairness” were required in the determination of a torture claim but the learned Judge viewed the matter lightly.  He further asserted that the learned Judge’s refusal of the applicant’s appeal was unreasonable and the Board had failed to give sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to his non-refoulement claims and his appeal.  He maintained he would face hardship and would be killed by his enemy if he returned to his home country.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly without merits.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are general and bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support and are not viable grounds.  General assertions of his fear if refouled also do not constitute viable grounds.  This Court had considered his appeal thoroughly and gave detailed reasons for dismissing his appeal in the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate with specific particulars as to how this Court erred in the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

8.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 11 October 2021 is dismissed.