Re Shafi Kamran
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 320/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 May 2022.
1. The applicant is a Pakistani national who made a claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. His 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 K W Lung, [1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 21 January 2022. [2
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
CAMP 320/2021 [2022] HKCA 609 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 320 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1906 OF 2018) ____________
____________ Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court Date of Judgment: 4 May 2022 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.The applicant is a Pakistani national who made a claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. His 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 K W Lung,[1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 21 January 2022.[2] 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 15 February 2022, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated:
4.Despite the acknowledgment by the applicant on 15 February 2022 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on the same day, the applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application. We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper without an oral hearing. 5.Having considered the materials available, 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. 6.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 320/2021