JUNILLER JOEL PUTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 208/2024, [2025] HKCA 235

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 208 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1700 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 9 January 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 22 January 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that there was some error of law in the decision on his case, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and his “previous facts” and the actual situation was different, that the courts had ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that the decision had unfairly assessed the danger to his life and was clearly not reasonable.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 5 February 2025, the applicant repeated that his life was at risk in his home country. He said the judge erred in not applying the “principle of irrationality” to the Director’s and the Board’s decisions, and did not analyse his claim. He said that the Board did not give him sufficient opportunity to arrange the relevant evidence.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.