BIN ILYAS MUHAMMAD USAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 136/2023, [2024] HKCA 475

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 136 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2542 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 April 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 18 April 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there was “some error” in the decision, that the actual situation differed from the country of origin information, that the decision took a biased and formulaic approach without fairly assessing the danger to his life, and that he did not have legal representation.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant complained that the Board failed to conduct sufficient inquiry before coming to a decision and refused his appeal without any reason (which was not correct since the Board gave detailed reasons in its 21-page written decision).  He also attached a few pages containing certain “grounds of relief” that appear to be a generic document setting out general propositions without any specific relation to his case.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. 

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.