|
CAMP 278/2022
[2022] HKCA 1617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 278 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1083 OF 2019)
____________________
| RE: |
MANNEH FAKEBBA |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
5 October 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
10 November 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’s 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. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 29 September 2022.[1]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 29 September 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant simply stated that he “would like to challenge the decision”.
3. In his written submissions, the applicant merely reiterated his immigration history and the factual allegations relied upon for his non-refoulement claim.
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 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.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|