RE KPARSUAH ROBERT GBADEYAH

CACV 41/2023, [2023] HKCA 953

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 41 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 38 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 23 June 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 16 June 2023 (“the Judgment”)  ([2023] HKCA 752). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 6 February 2023, by which the Deputy Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 250).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS BOARD TOO DISMISSED. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GRANT MY LEAVE. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE. TO GET JUSTICE I WANT TO GO TO COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 7 July 2023.  In those submissions, he repeated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim and further asserted that he “will talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker”.

6.  On 19 July 2023, the applicant filed a request for dismissal of appeal.  On the basis of the applicant’s application for dismissal alone, we will dismiss this application.

7.  In any event, for completeness, as further seen below, we also would have dismissed the applicant’s present application as his application is devoid of merit.  His assertions in relation to the alleged dangerous situation in his home country is vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  His allegation that he “will talk for the great interest of all asylum seeker” is also vague and devoid of basis.  More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

8.  Further and in any event, even taking it at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed is dismissed.