Re Sharma Sonu
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 178/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 December 2021.
1. The applicant is a Nepalese national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan based on the applicant’s own request to withdraw his application. [1] His subsequent application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by the
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
CAMP 178/2021 [2021] HKCA 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 178 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2320 OF 2018)
____________ Before: Hon Chu and G Lam JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 23 November 2021 Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.The applicant is a Nepalese national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan based on the applicant’s own request to withdraw his application.[1] His subsequent application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by the judge.[2] The applicant’s renewed application to this Court for extension of time to appeal was struck out by this Court on 28 October 2021.[3] 2.The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here. 3.The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 9 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:
4.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing. 5.In his written submissions of 23 November 2021, the applicant in essence merely repeated his previous arguments made in his application to this Court for extension of time to appeal, and further submitted that the Notice of Motion should be considered by a different judge or different panel of judges. It is clear that these submissions fail to engage with this Court’s reasons for striking out the summons for extension of time to appeal. 6.We are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 7.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person [3] [2021] HKCA 1566 (Chu and G Lam JJA) | ||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 178/2021