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

CAMP 115/2023, [2023] HKCA 901

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 900 &

[2022] HKCFI 3289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 115 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 918 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 27 June 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court K W Lung dated 4 April 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 25 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 31 August 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 4 July 2023, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“Director decision and adjudicators decision was not correct and had many error of proceding. The High Court and the Court of Appeal did not give me justice. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.” [sic]

The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any valid or proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 July 2023.

5.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

7.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.