RE OKEZIE MUNACHISO alias OKUJETO PHILIP

CAMP 327/2022

[2023] HKCA 178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 327 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2005 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 10 October 2022.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 13 January 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant simply stated that he wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 27 January 2023, the applicant lodged written submissions with this court. He submitted that the previous decisions rejecting his application were all based on misleading information of Nigerian Muslim media. He repeated the factual allegations that formed the basis of his non-refoulement claim. He urged the Director and the Board to send representatives to his country to investigate. He reiterated that as a Christian, he is a target of Boko Haram and Fulani herdsman terrorists. He said the Government there is planning to force everyone to become a Muslim. He maintained that he would be forced by the Abodimkpa cult to be initiated as the chief priest. He asked for protection and for the opportunity to stay in Hong Kong.

4.  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 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. Further, the application was made long after the expiry of the 28-day time limit prescribed by section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.