RE GURPREET SINGH

CACV 582/2019

[2020] HKCA 589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 582 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1302 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Decision of the Court):

Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 13 May 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down its judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 9 December 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by notice of motion dated 20 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

4.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion in summary that:-

(1)  the Judges have not applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration;

(2)  the Judges have not applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director which required him to give reasons;

(3)  Internal relocation was not possible; anyone could hire a corrupt police officer to search the applicant.

5.  The applicant’s written submissions dated 29 May 2020 contain several pages of quotations from legal authorities and a statutory provision that are sometimes referred to in non-refoulement cases, but do not explain how those passages apply to the facts of his case.

Legal principles

6.  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 will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

Our view

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

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

Disposition

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 20 May 2020 is dismissed.