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

CACV 6/2025, [2025] HKCA 867

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 6 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2119 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 27 December 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 28 June 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 September 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 24 June 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 25 June 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant complains, inter alia, that the Court erred in holding that the Judge did not fail to fully appreciate the significance of his non-refoulement claim. He alleges that the Court failed to address the issues in his grounds of appeal or his submissions, or discuss the errors made by the Board and the Director. He repeats his complaints about the lack of legal and/or language assistance, and the fact that while the Director did not make any adverse finding on his credibility, the Board took an adverse view of his credibility. He also alleges that the Court failed to consider “the reasons for [his] absence at the oral hearing before deciding on the appeal”. This allegation is plainly wrong in view of the fact the Applicant appeared before the Board, the Judge and this Court on separate occasions, and made submissions in support of his case.

4.  In his written submissions dated 10 July 2025, the Applicant made some general complaints about procedural unfairness, including the lack of legal and/or language assistance.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  The Applicant’s complaints are either general allegations without particulars, or have been dealt with in the CA Judgment, or are plainly unsustainable. No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

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