CAMARA LAMINE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 4/2025, [2025] HKCA 480

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 4 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2036 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 April 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 15 April 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, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and his “previous facts” in rejecting his claim, that the actual situation was different, and that the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach, did not fairly assess the danger to his life and was clearly not reasonable.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant merely set out quotations from previous court decisions and the Immigration Ordinance, without showing how those passages apply to his case.

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.