RE KARKI SAJANI

CAMP 97/2018

[2019] HKCA 223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 97 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 476/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 5 October 2018, this court (Cheung and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 24 May 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform the honourable court that the decision… has been made with error of law. The decision maker has purely relied on the COI information and previous facts which were in favour of rejecting my claim purely on COI. The actual life in my country of origin is totally different from what is mentioned in the COI information … The officer, adjudicator and the court prefers to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities like me who simply want to live a normal life without torture. The decision is not only flawed but also it is biased with a fixed formula approach to decide cases of similar nature without realizing that COI referred which are to some always cannot decide everyone’s case.”

4.  In his submissions dated 25 January 2019, the applicant submitted that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of his Notice of Motion and submissions.

6.  The matters stated by the applicantin his Notice of Motion and submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion.  As for the complaints against the Board in the Notice of Motion and the submissions, we have repeatedly held that judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment of the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh even in the absence of any legal error.  Further, the applicant has wholly failed to identify any error in our judgment.  There is thus no viable ground for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.   

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2018 is dismissed.