RE BRAR SIMRANJEET SINGH

CAMP 208/2021

[2022] HKCA 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 208 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1255 of 2018)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 15 March 2021 refusing to extend the time for him to apply for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 25 November 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The applicant stated the following in the notice of motion in support of the application: 

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principle or irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness whereby the Director was required to give reasons to justify his decision.

(3)  There is some error of law in the decision.  The decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and facts that support the rejection of his claim.

(4)  Actual situation is different from that mentioned in the COI.  The officer and the court prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence on violence committed towards the minorities.

(5)  The judge did not apply the law properly.

(6)  His life is in danger in his country and he will be killed if he returns there.

7.  The matters put forward in the notice of motion do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant and his claim, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  The requirement for granting leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance is therefore not met.  

8.  Moreover, the matters put forward by the applicant have no relevance to the decisions underlying the intended appeal.  The applicant’s appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board against the Director’s further decision concerning the assessment of the BOR2 risk was late and the Board refused to allow the late filing of his notice of appeal/petition.  The matters stated in the notice of motion are misplaced. 

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

10.  By a letter dated 21 December 2021 which only reached the Court on 29 December 2021, the applicant asked to withdraw his case as he wants to go back to his home country as soon as possible.

11.  In view of the indication made by the applicant in the letter and having regard to the fact that the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.