Re Pandey Nitesh Kumar

CAMP 331/2022

[2022] HKCA 1911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 331 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1199 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 28 November 2022

Date of Judgment: 18 January 2023

_________________

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 10 October 2022.[1]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 14 November 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant merely stated that the judgments were “not good” for him and that he wanted to go to the CFA.

3.In his written submissions, the applicant stated he had “life threat” in his own country and that it was not possible for him to return home.  He said there were many errors in the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Board but the courts failed to identify them.  Thus he asked for 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.  Further, the application for leave was made outside the 28-day period prescribed by section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, and there has been no satisfactory explanation of the delay.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person