RE CERVANTES RONEL VILLACERAN

CAMP 456/2021

[2022] HKCA 866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 456 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1072 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a Philippine national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] He did not appeal in time and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 21 January 2022.[2]

2.  Long after the 28-day period prescribed by section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), on 26 May 2022 the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  He stated in the Notice of Motion that the Director of Immigration and the Board rejected his claim, that the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review, and that he was not totally satisfied and wanted to go to the CFA.  On the same date the applicant filed an affirmation which added nothing of substance.

3.  The written submissions lodged by the applicant on 6 June 2022 simply recounted the history and basis of his non-refoulement claim.

4.  Having considered the papers, we consider it appropriate, in accordance with the usual practice, to determine this application on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed not only because of the unexplained delay, but also because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance), and in addition because the applicant has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.