RE OSUJI ONYEKACHI LOUIS

CAMP 206/2023, [2025] HKCA 662

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 206 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 792 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 2 September 2024, this Court handed down decision ([2024] HKCA 832)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 18 April 2023 refusing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 5 September 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 19 September 2024.

2)  Our view

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.   We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  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.

6.  The applicant stated the following in the notice of motion :

‘ I would like to infomr 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 favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

7.  The applicant’s written submission consists entirely of general statements of law, quotations from cases, bald assertions of procedural unfairness and reference to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance.

8.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  All the matters contained in the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission are matters that are within the province of the Board.  They do not show how the Judge had erred.

9.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

11.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.