CHHETRI RAHUL BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 426/2024, [2025] HKCA 378

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 426 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1683 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 26 September 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant 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 May 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.

2.  On 13 March 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 26 March 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant raises 2 complaints. First, he alleges that the Director, the Adjudicator and the court(s) have failed to take his argument into account or give weight to them, and he was not present at the hearing(s) with all necessary documents and evidence. Second, he alleges that “[a]ll the decision(s)” were made by the “judge” on the basis of previous decisions, and he was never given any fair chance to present himself or explain his claim. In a 12-page document attached to the Notice of Motion, he makes complaints of irrationality, procedural impropriety, failure to provide reasons, failure to consider a consistent system of human rights violation, and failure to consider country of origin information.

4.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of his application in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 26 March 2025.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  The Applicant’s complaint that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case is plainly unsustainable. He was assisted by a Duty Lawyer in relation to the assessment of his non-refoulement claim by the Director. He attended an oral hearing before the Board in his appeal against the Director’s decision. He presented his appeal and answered questions from the Adjudicator with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter. He was heard by the Judge on 5 August 2024 in his application for leave to apply for judicial review, again with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter. In relation to his appeal to this Court, he gave his consent for it to be disposed of on paper on 10 October 2024, and he failed to file any written submissions in support of his appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 10 October 2024. His other complaints were either new grounds or have already been considered in the CA Judgment. No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

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