Re Lakhwinder Singh

CAMP 363/2022

[2023] HKCA 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 363 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 517 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  30 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 with respect to BOR 2 risk was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the applicant’s appeal out of time was rejected 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 23 November 2022.[1]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 16 December 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the lack of assistance provided to him was an error of law or procedure and procedural unfairness, that despite his “language incapability” the authorities had not made arrangements for him to understand the contents of the judgments, and that without legal assistance it was not possible for him to elaborate on the specific errors in the decisions. He reiterated that he was late because he did not receive the decision of the court.

3.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 30 December 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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.

4.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.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person