RE SATTER ABDUL

CACV 402/2020

[2021] HKCA 851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2111 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 16 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 246), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 11 August 2020 in HCAL 2111/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/the Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 27 July 2018 in which it confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 29 June 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 29 March 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“With due respect I want to inform you that I couldn’t accept the decision which was made on 16 March 2021 by Judge, because there are some incorrect information which are used by the Court to make this decision. Decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. The Judge did not verify all the matters which I gave to the Court in previous time. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. This decision was unfair and reflected my claim. Other grounds is written on Annex-A.”

3.  “Annex-A” attached to the Notice of Motion provides the following grounds:

“1. High standards of fairness are required in determination of a torture claims on the part of the decision makers, but the learned Judge reviewed the matter lightly.

2. The decision has the effect of finally disposing of the applicant’s torture claim and making him liable to be removed from Hong Kong. This entail is real and significant implications for the applicant’s substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection. In the other words, the decision has a significant effect on the applicant’s torture claims.

3. The learned Judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

4. The learned Judge may not analyse the applicant’s claims properly in his home country.

5. The learned Judge’s decision to refuse the applicant’s appeal was unreasonable.”

4.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 March 2021, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 12 April 2021.  He failed to do so.

5.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) 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. 

7.  Here, the applicant’s grounds of appeal against our judgment are vague and general without any specificities or elaborations and they are not viable grounds of appeal.  As set out in [5] – [7] of our judgment, the Board rejected the applicant’s case on the issue of credibility. The Judge, when considering his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, had duly considered the grounds of his intended challenge[1] and set out his assessment and findings in detail at [12] to [16] of the CALL-1 Form dated 11 August 2020[2].  In gist, the Judge did not find any error of law or procedural unfairness or irregularities in the Board’s decision that would warrant court’s intervention.  We had carefully reviewed the Board’s decision and endorsed the Judge’s decision.  In our judgment, the applicant’s case is devoid of merit and none of his complaints as set out in the Notice of Motion can be established.

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 16 March 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.

[1]  The grounds of the applicant’s intended challenge was set out at [6] of our judgment.

[2]  [7] of the our judgment.