MAC THE LUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 7/2022

[2022] HKCA 1585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1500 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 25 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 30 December 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 21 October 2021, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 29 June 2021.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 15 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows:

“1- The learned Judge were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrational to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on dated 5^th January 2022 refusing my application for judicial review.

2-  The learned Judge were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrational to the decision of the Director hereby he was required to give reason justifying the decision.”

3.  In his affirmation made on 14 September 2022, the Applicant stated that he understood that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal”, and he believed that the merits of this ground of appeal constituted sufficient reason or justification for the Court to “exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal”.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 September 2022.

5.  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.

6.  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. 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.

7.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.