|
CACV 172/2022
[2023] HKCA 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 172 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 193 OF 2019)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
GURJANT SINGH |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ |
Putative |
| |
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS |
Respondent |
| |
PETITION OFFICE |
|
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and S T Poon J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
16 December 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
7 February 2023 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 October 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 14 April 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 20 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 October 2018.
2. By Notice of Motion dated 8 December 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:
“… I am late for apply due to lack of knowledge and insufficient sources. Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case further. I hope I will get your favour.”
3. In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 16 December 2022, he says that “[his] life will [become] so worse if [he returns] to [his] home country”, and asks to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until he can solve his problem in his home country. The Applicant also states that he is not satisfied with all the decisions given in relation to his case, and makes some general complaint about lack of transparency in the decision making process. The Applicant has not, in his Notice of Motion, Affirmation or written submissions, identified any alleged error in the CA Judgment, or ground of intended appeal.
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
|
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|