RE TEJEDOR SERNA JORGE ANDRES

CAMP 332/2022

[2023] HKCA 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 332 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 423 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 23 November 2022.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 1 December 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant stated, by way of grounds of appeal, that the Director failed to conduct sufficient inquiry of the relevant country of origin information and failed to consider properly the issues of BOR 3 risks and to give reasons, that high standards of fairness are applicable as life and limb are in jeopardy, that there was procedural impropriety in applying the wrong standard of proof, that there was a failure to consider fully the extended form of state acquiescence, and that the applicant was not legally represented in the proceedings.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court, 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.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484).  Further, the applicant has failed to identify any errors in our judgment.  The grounds he has put forward appeared to be formulaic assertions which in our view do not show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.