|
CACV 225/2022
[2022] HKCA 1872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 225 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1152 OF 2020)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SUKHBIR SINGH |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Chow JA and K Yeung J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 22 November 2022
Date of Judgment: 28 December 2022
______________
J U D G M E N T
______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 30 May 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 5 June 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 March 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 14 November 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:
“I would like to [inform] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on [COI] and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in [COI]. The Officer and [courts] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”
3. In his written submissions dated 22 November 2022, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how they are applicable to his case, or point to any alleged error in the CA Judgment.
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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Keith Yeung)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|