|
CAMP 444/2021
[2022] HKCA 780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 444 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1832 OF 2018)
____________
| RE: |
BADAL SINGH |
Applicant |
____________
Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 18 May 2022
Date of Judgment: 7 June 2022
_________________
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.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 4 May 2022.[2]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. 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.
3. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated he wished the CFA would consider his application for leave for judicial review. In his written submissions lodged on 18 May 2022, he said that he faced threats to his life in his own country and that his blood would “become ice” whenever he remembered the activities of his enemies. He said like other asylum seekers he wanted to go to the CFA.
4. This application has 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 (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 he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
5. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Godfrey Lam) |
(Anderson Chow) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|