RE ROHIMAH AND ANOTHER

CACV 371/2020

[2021] HKCA 1950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 371 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1891 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Lam VP as he then was, Yuen JA and Lok J)  handed down judgment on 15 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 847)  dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 4 August 2020 refusing to give the 1^st and 2^nd applicants leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non-refoulement claims (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.  On 14 August 2020, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision.  As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 15 June 2021, we dismissed the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 25 June 2021, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants filed a Notice of Motion (it appears to have been signed by only one person)  for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to infomr (sic)  the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours (sic)  prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  Pursuant to the directions given by Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 June 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants lodged their written submissions on 9 July 2021.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, we proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.  In the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ written submissions, they quoted passages from ST v Director of Immigration[1] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, and other decisions on Wednesbury unreasonableness.  They further submitted that “high standards of fairness” applied to the determination of a non-refoulement claim and the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicants’ credibility.  Lastly, they referred to s. 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115)  which is concerned with the late filing of notice of appeal to the Board. However, they did not explain and elaborate how the aforesaid cases and legal provisions were relevant to or would assist their case.

6.  S. 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

7.  Having regard to the judgment of this court, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ intended appeal has no merits. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s. 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.   

8.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under s. 22(1)(b).

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 25 June 2021 is dismissed.