RE SAMPAYAN BERNARD ABLAO

CACV 252/2024, [2025] HKCA 290

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 252 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1665/2019)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 2 January 2025, this court (Barma JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 18 June 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 7 January 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant’s grounds stated therein may be summarised as follows. Essentially, he contends that this Court:

(a)  Failed to adequately consider his “fears” and dangers posed by his “enemies” should he be refouled;

(b)  Failed to consider his claim under “BOR2 and BOR3 [risks]”;

(c)  Failed to consider the condition of his “country of origin” and that there would be inadequate protection of him from his enemies.

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 17 January 2025. In the written submissions, the applicant essentially repeated his complaints against the Board (which he raised in the appeal) as well as his description of the dangers he may face should he be refouled.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 7 January 2025 is dismissed.