RE SINGH SATVEER

CAMP 357/2021

[2022] HKCA 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 357 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 815 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.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 3 March 2022.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 19 September 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant did not set out any grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion or the accompanying affirmation.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 3 October 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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.

4.  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.  Further, the application was filed long after the expiration of the 28-day period prescribed by section 24(2)  of the Ordinance, and no ground had been advanced for this court to extend time.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.