|
CACV 162/2024, [2025] HKCA 153
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 162 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1568 OF 2019)
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
MANJINDER SINGH |
Applicant |
|
and
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
|
and
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Hon Chu VP and G Lam JA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
27 February 2025 |
_________________
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 is an Indian national whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 November 2024.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 27 December 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant made some generalised criticisms of this court’s decision such as that this court failed to apply the “principle of procedural unfairness” and the “principle of irrationality” and stated that his life would be in danger if he returned to his own country. The applicant also filed an affirmation seeking leave to file the Notice of Motion out of time.
3. The applicant has not lodged any submissions for the present application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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.
(Carlye Chu)
Vice President |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|