RE PARDEEP SINGH

CACV 261/2023, [2026] HKCA 464

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 261 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1011 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 30 May 2025, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 3 August 2023 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 5 June 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that he wished this court to consider granting him leave to apply for judicial review.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 19 June 2025, the applicant repeated the supposed errors committed by the Judge and emphasised that his life would still be in danger should he be refouled.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 5 June 2025 is dismissed.