TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 456/2024, [2025] HKCA 257

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 456 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2012 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 29 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order (“the 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 14 June 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 January 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 13 February 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 Notice of Motion dated 18 February 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that the Board made “many error[s]”, and he did not get justice from the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

4.  In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 4 March 2025 filed in support of the present application, the Applicant repeats his allegation that he faces a serious risk of life in his home country. He alleges generally that his claim was not scrutinised properly, and says that the judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality or the principle of procedural unfairness, and reviewing the matter “lightly”. The Applicant further alleges that the Board failed to give him a sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence. He asks for “some time” to submit “some documents” to the court in support of his claim.

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.  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. The allegation that he was not given a proper or sufficient opportunity to arrange relevant evidence before the Board is a new ground which was not raised in his appeal. In any event, the Applicant has also not identified what relevant evidence or document(s) he wishes to adduce. No proper basis has been shown for the Court to give him further time to submit document(s) in support of the present application. 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.