CELESTIAL VALENTIN GUISINGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 367/2022

[2023] HKCA 44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 367 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 386 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 19 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 22 April 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 11 January 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 July 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 21 December 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he does not want to return to his home country because his life is still in danger there. He also makes some general complaints of unreasonableness and unfairness, and alleges that the “Judge” failed to give him sufficient time and chance to arrange for relevant evidence to be adduced.

4.  In his written submissions dated 4 January 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but has failed to identify any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

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 proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. 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.

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