SUMAGANG JADE RIVERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 339/2022

[2023] HKCA 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 339 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2523 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 21 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 14 December 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 16 August 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 5 September 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 3 February 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant merely states the following:

“I am lodging this motion to appeal for the decision made by lower court & the Torture Claim Appeal Board with regards to their [unmeritorious] claim I made.”

3.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 3 February 2023.

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 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.

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.