GHAFFAR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 219/2021

[2022] HKCA 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 219 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1423 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

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

1.  On 10 January 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“Judge”) dated 7 June 2021. By that order, the Judge refused to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against his earlier order dated 8 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 July 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 17 January 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the “Grounds” attached to the Notice of Motion, the Applicant explained why he was late in appealing the Judge’s order of 8 April 2021 and then stated the following:

“Failing to take into account relevant considerations/taking into account irrelevant Consideration.

When assessing a non refoulement claim the Decision makers must pay due regard the applicable rules of law, have regard to all relevant matters and not to have regard to irrelevant matters.

It is submitted that the TCAB and the Director failed to take into account and/or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials which he should have, and hence his decision is illegal. Specially, both failed to give due regard to:”

3.  In his written submissions dated 27 January 2022, the Applicant contends, inter alia, that the Board and the Director failed to comply with their duty to make sufficient inquiries into the country of origin conditions and adopted a passive approach in contravention of the high standards of fairness.

4.  The Applicant has not pointed to or identified any error in the judgments of the Judge or the Court of Appeal.

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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.