KHATRI BHANU BHAKTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 155/2023, [2023] HKCA 995

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 155 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 567 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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 11 July 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 18 July 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there had been a failure to consider why he feared returning to his country, a failure to consider that the reason why he was late in seeking to appeal was that he received the decision out of time, and a failure to consider his claim under article 3 of the Bill of Rights.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 26 July 2023, the applicant stated that he was late in submitting an appeal because he did not receive the Court of First Instance’s decision in time, and that the Judge did not consider the reasons raised for an extension of time.  The applicant said he would face real risks from his enemies if he returned to his country and that the Board and the Director failed to take account of give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining the present application 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.