RE SHAFI KAMRAN

CAMP 320/2021

[2022] HKCA 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 320 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1906 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant is a Pakistani national who made a claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung,[1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 21 January 2022.[2]

2.  The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 15 February 2022, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated:

“ I would like to reject the decision made by TCAB and the court in support of TCAB. They disregard my situation.”

4.  Despite the acknowledgment by the applicant on 15 February 2022 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on the same day, the applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application. We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.