PIMENTEL BENEDICTO JR NISPEROS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 131/2024, [2024] HKCA 779

On Appeal from [2024] HKCFI 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 131 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1378 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 3 April 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant 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 9 May 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 November 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 31 July 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the said 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 Notice of Motion dated 5 August 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion and also in his written submissions dated 9 August 2024, the Applicant essentially repeats the factual basis of his claim for non-refoulement protection, and explains why he cannot return to his home country.

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

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 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 merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

7.  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.

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