RE HOSSAIN AKHTAR

CAMP 294/2021

[2022] HKCA 610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 294 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1743 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 is an Indian national whose 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. He did not appeal against that decision within the time prescribed by the rules and his application for extension of time was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 21 January 2022.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 21 February 2022 – outside the 28-day period prescribed by section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), the applicant now seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In his motion he stated that he wanted to go to the CFA. In the accompanying affirmation, he said that he missed the time to apply because he had a fever. In his written submissions dated 20 April 2022, he reiterated that his life would be in danger if he returned to Pakistan and that he wanted to go to the CFA.

3.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the written materials without an oral hearing.

4.  We are of 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 (see section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.