Re Kuldeep Singh

CAMP 271/2022

[2022] HKCA 1660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 271 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1508 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  20 October 2022

Date of Judgment:  23 November 2022

________________________

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’s 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. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 8 September 2022.[1]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant merely stated that he wanted to go to the CFA.

3.In his written submissions he said there were threats to his life in his motherland, that the Board made many errors which he pointed out to the court, and that the CFA would give a good decision to him and to his asylum-seeker friends.

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