RE SHEZAD ALI

CAMP 388/2022

[2023] HKCA 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 388 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1983 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 the appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). The applicant’s 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.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 6 December 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant simply said he wanted to go to the CFA.  On 19 December 2022 the applicant lodged written submissions for the present application, but did not set out any proper ground of appeal or valid reason why leave should be given to appeal to the CFA.  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.

3.  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.

4.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.