MOHAMMED NEYAZUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CAMP 80/2023, [2023] HKCA 1312

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1006 &

[2022] HKCFI 3664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 80 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 336 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

___________________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________________

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

1.  On 8 April 2022, DHCJ Bruno Chan made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 January 2018 and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 January 2019 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 27 October 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the Order. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 8 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 as follows:

“I will advance two grounds of appeal namely:

(1) Error of Law (2) Decision was reached unfairly.

For ground (1) I relied on (i) persecution risk (ii) Hong Kong Bill of Rights 2 (iii) Hong Kong Bill of Rights 3, to establish the the Director, Board and Court in their Decision to dismiss the Case.

I cited the COI which the Director and the Board relied on in finding that internal relocation is available to me. I establishes that to dismiss my claim was unfair and prejudicial.” [sic]

4.  In his written submissions dated 22 November 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulemnt claims, but fails to explain how those principles are applicable to his case.

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 two intended grounds of appeal mentioned in the Notice of Motion are mere general statements without particulars. 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.