|
CAMP 204/2022
[2023] HKCA 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 204 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2961 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
MACAGANDA ELEANOR BALBAG |
1st Applicant |
| |
SUBBAIYAH AMARKALAM |
2nd Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
12 January 2023 |
| Date of Judgment: |
8 February 2023 |
_________________
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’ 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”). 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 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 29 December 2022, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicants stated that the judgments of the Court of First Instance and of this court are not good for them and they want to go to the CFA.
3. In the written submissions for the present application, the 1st applicant wrote that her enemies are powerful and can kill her any time, that they pay money to the police and so the police help them, and that her home country is not safe for her.
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. In addition, the application has been made out of time.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] [2022] HKCA 1661.
|