KAMRAN KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 365/2022, [2024] HKCA 426

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 365 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 448 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 27 March 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 2 April 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant simply stated that the Director’s and the Board’s decisions were incorrect, that the High Court did not give him justice, and that he wants to go to the CFA.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 15 April 2024, the applicant simply reiterated the allegations raised for his non-refoulement claim and repeated what he stated in the Notice of Motion.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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 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), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.