|
CAMP 440/2022
[2023] HKCA 228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 440 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM NO. HCAL 182 OF 2021)
____________
| RE: |
HUSSAIN IMTIAZ |
Applicant |
____________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
3 March 2023 |
_________________
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 18 January 2023.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 27 January 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that all the judgments were “not good for [him]” and that he wanted to go to the CFA.
3. Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 10 February 2023, 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), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
5. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|