Case Document

100%Judiciary

CAMP 133/2021

[2022] HKCA 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 133 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1990 OF 2018)

____________

RE:

SARDAR FARUK

Applicant

____________

Before:

Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	20 January 2022
Date of Judgment:	3 March 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The applicant is a Bangladeshi 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 rejected by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan,[1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 29 October 2021.[2]

2.The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the application for extension of time have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 7 January 2022, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ Director of Immigration rejected my nonrefoulement claim. Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my appeal. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I want to go to Court of Final Appeal. Permit me to go.” [sic]

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 20 January 2022, the applicant stated that his life was in danger because his political opponents wished to kill him, and that they had money but were unpopular, whereas he was popular and had support from every sector. He also reiterated the procedural history of his claim, and stated that he did not get justice and that, indeed, no asylum seeker got justice. He seeks permission to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect 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 other reason why the applicant should be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.