TURSINIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 345/2021

[2022] HKCA 663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 345 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1835 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 29 December 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against an order made by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 13 July 2020 refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 30 August 2018.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 2 March 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“… In the order give to the court there is some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts where were favour on reject my claims. Actual life occurs different situation the mentioned COI information. Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Court’s prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal representation. Could you please provide me and consider my real situation and save my life’s as a human being…”

3.  The Applicant has not filed any submissions in support of the application.

4.  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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.  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.

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