RE ONYIKE SAMUEL TEMPO

CACV 108/2025, [2025] HKCA 1040

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2508 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.  On 4 August 2025, this Court (Chu VP and H. Au-Yeung J)  handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 691)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 25 February 2025 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.   

2.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 8 August 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by contending that:

(1)  This Court has made error in law;

(2)  The decision-maker had relied on COI information while rejecting his claim;

(3)  The Court has ignored overwhelming evidence which is in his favour;

(4)  The Court’s decision is unfair and unreasonable. 

3.  The applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions pursuant to PD 2.1.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 the documents in the case.

DISCUSSION

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong)  (“the Ordinance”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.  In the present application, the applicant has simply failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which he has raised.

7.  Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any supposed error in our Judgment.  His argument that this Court has erred in law is a bare assertion which is not particularised.

8.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

9.  For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

10.  The Notice of Motion filed on 8 August 2025 is therefore dismissed.