|
CACV 91/2019
[2019] HKCA 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 91 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 731 OF 2018)
-----------------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
|
NARENDRA SINGH |
Applicant
(Appellant)
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
1st Putative Respondent
|
|
and |
|
|
THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative Respondent
|
-----------------------------------
Before: Hon Yuen, Barma and Au JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 29 July 2019
Date of Judgment: 16 August 2019
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (Hon Yuen and Au JJA) handed down judgment on 5 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 736) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 20 February 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
2. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 16 July 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He lodged his written submissions on 29 July 2019.
3. On 17 July 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.
4. The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion:
“Dear Sir Madam,
I would like to inform court there is lot of error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on rejected my claims. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information. Officer Immigration Department and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly [calculate] to rejected my claim.”
5. In the applicant’s submissions, he repeated the facts of his case which had been canvassed before the TCAB and the Judge.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.
7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.
8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 16 July 2019 is dismissed.
| (Maria Yuen) |
(Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
Justice of Appeal
|
Justice of Appeal
|
Justice of Appeal
|
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|