AGCAOILI FREDDIE AGCAOILI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 286/2023, [2024] HKCA 255

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 286 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1481 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 5 February 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  from the Judgment of this Court dated 29 January 2024 by which his appeal against the lower court’s refusal to grant him leave to apply for judicial review regarding the rejection of his non-refoulement claim by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office was dismissed.

2.  The Notice of Motion contains 4 numbered paragraphs whereby it is contended that :

(1)  This Court was wrong in not applying the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration;

(2)  The decision maker just relied on the Country of Origin Information (“COI”)  and the Applicant’s “previous facts” (it is probably a reference to his previous evidence)  in rejecting his claim;

(3)  Actual life differs from COI.  Officers and the Courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities;

(4)  This Court did not apply the law properly.

3.  The Applicant also filed an affirmation on 5 February 2024 in which it was stated that there is a good ground of appeal. There is, however, no elaboration on what the ground of appeal is.

4.  In his written submissions filed on 19 February 2024, various legal principles were set out by the Applicant without any reference to how they may assist his application.  The only exception being para 5 of the submissions by which it was submitted that the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in failing to properly access the credibility of the Applicant. 

5.  Pursuant to para 4 of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeal dated 5 February 2024 (“Directions”), if there is any request for an oral hearing of the leave application, the representation in support must be made in the written submissions.  There is no such submission made.  We are of the view that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper and we do so. 

6.  Para 4 of the Directions also stated that the written submissions “should identify and formulate the questions that would meet the criteria of section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance for leave to be granted”.  No attempt has been made by the Applicant to identify any question of great general or public importance in his case which should be considered by the CFA.  This is a fundamental requirement for a leave application.

7.  In respect of the contentions in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions, they are wholly lacking in particulars and of no assistance to the Applicant. 

8.  For these reasons, we see no merits in this application and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.