ARELLANO ARIEL GONZAGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 182/2024, [2025] HKCA 241

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 182 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1361 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of the Philippines whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 November 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 12 February 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. To that document the applicant annexed certain grounds of appeal which stated that he had no knowledge of Hong Kong law and was not informed about what he could do; that he left the New People’s Army and would be killed if he returned to the Philippines; and that relocation within the Philippines would mean he had to live like a fugitive. In his supporting affirmation the applicant stated that he did not receive the letter that sent him the decision of this Court of 12 November 2024 and asked for an extension of time.

3.  The applicant’s written submissions dated 24 February 2025 essentially reproduced the grounds of appeal attached to his Notice of Motion.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.