RE GURPREET SINGH

CAMP 100/2021

[2022] HKCA 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 100 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 733 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 3 September 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 Bruno Chan given on 22 September 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 15 September 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion and an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation and written submission, 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 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 notice of motion and affirmation explained that the applicant’s delay was due to lack of knowledge and insufficient resources. Other than this, they do not contain any grounds in support of the application.

7.  In the written submission, the applicant stated that:

(1)  Many things relating to his case had been ignored. The situation in his country is very different from what people think. It is hard for him to live and face his enemies.

(2)  He is really in danger in his country. He will go back but he needs some time to solve his problem.

(3)  Torture and deaths of innocent people while in police custody are common. The police do not fear any one and will support whoever that bribes them. The YouTube and internet have many examples showing how people like him are being treated in his country.

(4)  It is difficult to get justice in such corrupt environment and when the enemies are strong and powerful.

8.  We are of the view that the matters put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Importantly, they only relate to the circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, the intended appeal stems from the Director of Immigration’s further decision to reject the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on the BOR 2 risk ground. In his application for leave to apply for judicial review and the application to this Court for extension of time to appeal, the applicant had not provided any grounds to either challenge the Board’s dismissal of his appeal or the Judge’s refusal of leave to apply for judicial review. It is not open to the applicant to put forward new grounds in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In any event, these matters do not relate to this Court’s reasons for not extending the time for appealing the Judge’s decision.

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the application for leave to appeal is bound to fail. In the circumstances, it is futile to extend the time for making the application. Accordingly, we refuse to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion.