RE NWADOBE CHINATU ELVIS

CACV 119/2021

[2021] HKCA 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 119 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1237 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.  Before the court is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against this court’s judgment dated 16 August 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1194)  (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 12 March 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 590)  refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 26 January 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)  concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.  Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  Having considered the material available to us, we agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”)  or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.  In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):

“I would like to appeal against the decision made by the TCAB and the High Court. They disregard my dangerous situations in my home country.”

5.  On 10 September 2021, the applicant lodged written submission by which he largely repeated his earlier written submission dated 13 July 2021 before this court, which has already been summarised in [17] of the Judgment.  We will not repeat the same here.

Discussion

6.  The applicant did not really engage the reasons we gave in [19] to [23] of the Judgment.

7.  In gist, the applicant did not even attempt to overcome the hurdles (1) that he did not in the Form 86 in HCAL 1237/2018 or the accompanying affirmation point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board; or (2) that neither the notice of appeal nor the submission in the appeal before us identified any error of law by the Judge, any relevant natter that he had failed to consider or any other reason why the refusal of leave for judicial review was plainly wrong.

8.  The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise. 

9.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.  

10.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b)  for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.