RE EDUARDO JAGAME OGABAR alias ANTONIO JR ARANA DELANTE

CAMP 162/2021

[2022] HKCA 1206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 162 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1884 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 a Philippines 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 1 December 2021.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 24 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The application was made long after the expiry of the 28-day period prescribed by section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). The applicant stated that he did not receive this court’s decision until 24 June 2022 but this appears to have been caused by the applicant himself by providing an incorrect address in the summons and affirmation filed in this court.

3.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that this court erred in determining that the Judge below had not failed to appreciate the significance of his non-refoulement claim. The applicant stated that the lack of assistance provided to him was an error of law or procedure and evidence of procedural unfairness. He stated that he was not aware of the time limit for appealing, that he could not understand the “Determination” to the fullest, and that the authorities, despite his language incapability, had not made reasonable arrangements to enable him to understand the contents of the judgments and had thereby deprived him of the right to seek a further avenue of appeal.

4.  In the written submissions for this application, the applicant stated that the judgment of this court did not make logical sense, that this court had not considered his grounds of appeal thoroughly, and that he wished to have the opportunity of clarifying what he meant about the lack of legal representation for the appeal before the Board. He said he did not understand the Board’s decision or the judgment of the Court of First Instance, and that the lack of language assistance is discriminatory and should be deemed unlawful.

5.  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.

6.  Quite apart from the serious delay in the application, we have come to 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), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. His complaint about lack of legal or language assistance has been dealt with in this court’s judgment on the appeal itself.

7.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.