RE SANJAYA KUMAR MAGAR

CAMP 415/2021

[2022] HKCA 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 415 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2819 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 Nepalese 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] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 3 March 2022.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 22 April 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he was not given language assistance, that the interpretation services throughout the case seemed to be arranged for the judges to understand him, rather than to facilitate his understanding of his own case.  He stated that the unfairness in the process is a question of great general or public importance, particularly for non-refoulement claimants, having regard to their unique circumstances.  His written submissions lodged on 5 May 2022 essentially made the same points. 

3.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed.  As pointed out in our Judgment dated 3 March 2022, the applicant was legally represented and provided with language assistance in his claim before the Director of Immigration.  His first appeal to the Board was heard orally apparently with interpretation service.  His application to the court for leave to apply for judicial review was also heard orally, where he was assisted by a Nepali interpreter.  We do not consider that his complaint of unfairness has any reasonable prospects of success or gives rise to a question of great general or public importance.

5.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.