RE RANJIT SINGH

CAMP 500/2022, [2025] HKCA 270

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 500 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2233 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 11 February 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 7 February 2025 (“the Judgment”) ([2025] HKCA 114).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 19 September 2022, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 2835).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“With due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I am not agree with the decision of the courts, because the decision makers did not scrutinize my applications for the extension of time to appeal and for the leave application for Judicial Review. Despite my problem is severe in my home country and I have risk of being tortured, the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration rejected my non-refoulement claim and appeal.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submission.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, he fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment.  His submissions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  The Notice of Motion filed on 11 February 2025 is dismissed.