Re Raju

CAMP 472/2021

[2022] HKCA 1061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 472 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2765 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 Bangladeshi 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 3 March 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 17 May 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there was some error in the decision, that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and the applicant’s “previous facts”, that the actual situation was different, that the decision-maker and the courts ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining, and that the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach without assessing the danger to his life.

3.In an affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant asked for leave to file the Notice of Motion out of time as he did not receive the judgment within the time stipulated for appeal.

4.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 31 May 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 

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.

6.We take 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, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

7.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

[1]   [2021] HKCFI 1281.

[2]   [2022] HKCA 296.