Re Khan Md Omar

CACV 29/2022

[2022] HKCA 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 29 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1263 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

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 an Indian 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 23 June 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 28 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that for the great interest of all asylum seekers he wanted to go to the CFA.

3.In his written submissions lodged on 12 July 2022, the applicant stated that he had many serious problems in India but his main problem was that he could not truly express his problems to any authority. He said asylum seekers are being thrown to the burning fire, and requested permission to appeal to the CFA.

4.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, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.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.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person