|
CAMP 178/2021
[2021] HKCA 1973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 178 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2320 OF 2018)
| ____________ |
| RE: |
SHARMA SONU |
Applicant |
____________
Before: Hon Chu and G Lam JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 23 November 2021
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. The applicant is a Nepalese national whose non-refoulement 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 dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan based on the applicant’s own request to withdraw his application.[1] His subsequent application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by the judge.[2] The applicant’s renewed application to this Court for extension of time to appeal was struck out by this Court on 28 October 2021.[3]
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 9 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:
“ (1) The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the High Court judge refusing my application for a judicial review and time for extension of judicial review.
(2) Procedural unfairness.
(3) The judge did not apply the law properly.”
4. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.
5. In his written submissions of 23 November 2021, the applicant in essence merely repeated his previous arguments made in his application to this Court for extension of time to appeal, and further submitted that the Notice of Motion should be considered by a different judge or different panel of judges. It is clear that these submissions fail to engage with this Court’s reasons for striking out the summons for extension of time to appeal.
6. 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.
7. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] [2020] HKCFI 1032
[2] [2021] HKCFI 1238
[3] [2021] HKCA 1566 (Chu and G Lam JJA)
|