Re Dalope Richard Cristobal

CAMP 143/2021

[2022] HKCA 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 143 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2153 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.The applicant is a Philippine 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 28 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 28 December 2021, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ 1. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

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 11 January 2022, the applicant simply set out certain general legal principles and quoted passages from authorities and statutes, and asserted that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his credibility.

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 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