PARAMJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 138/2021

[2022] HKCA 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 138 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 149 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.  On 29 December 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 25 October 2019 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 19 April 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of procedural fairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information [and] my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

5. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country. I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.”

3.  These are general grounds often seen by this Court in applications relating to non-refoulement claims. The Applicant has not explained how they relate to the facts of his case. The Applicant has also not filed any written submissions in support of his application despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 19 April 2022.

4.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.