RE SIAMAH AND ANOTHER

CAMP 284/2021, [2023] HKCA 701

On Appeal From [2022] HKCA 1550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 284 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1907 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 applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their application for a second extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 3 November 2022.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 4 April 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants simply stated that was some error in the decisions and that they disagree with the Director’s and Board’s decisions.

3.  In their written submissions lodged on 18 April 2023, the applicants state that there was no interpretation assistance was given to them with regard to their claim based on BOR 2 risk; that the Court of Appeal should investigate and correct the lack of sound judgment and fairness in the non-refoulement claim process; and that the court and the authorities have been negligent.

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 applicants have 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 they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. Further, the Notice of Motion was filed much more than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The applicants state that they did not receive the letter from the court and therefore became late, but it appears that the address they provided in the latest documents filed with the court (in August 2022) was incorrect.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.