RE RE PRADEEP KUMAR

CAMP 343/2021

[2022] HKCA 1615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 343 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2710 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’s 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. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 4 May 2022.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 14 September 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the judges were wrong in “not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on 2 June 2021”.  This is mistaken as the Director’s decisions were made on 12 September 2014 and 10 January 2017.  It was Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung who made the decision to refuse to extend time for appeal on 2 June 2021.  The applicant further stated that the judges were wrong in not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director whereby the Director was required to give reasons justifying his decision.

3.  In his affirmation filed on 14 September 2022, the applicant asserted that there was a good ground of appeal that had not necessarily been considered before, but he has failed to specify what this alleged ground is.

4.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 28 September 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed.  First, the Notice of Motion was filed much later than the 28-day period prescribed in section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Secondly, 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).  Thirdly, the applicant has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

[1] [2022] HKCA 608.