Re Lakhwinder Singh
Read the full judgment text of CACV 121/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 November 2019.
1. On 17 June 2019, this court (Barma JA and Bharwaney J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 7 March 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 121/2019 [2019] HKCA 1231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 121 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 588/2018) -----------------------------------
----------------------------------- Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Bharwaney J in Court Date of Judgment: 7 November 2019 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 17 June 2019, this court (Barma JA and Bharwaney J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 7 March 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim. 2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here. 3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 8 July 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 22 July 2019. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion. He also explained why it is unsafe for him to return. 5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the Notice of Motion and written submission. 6.The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in the Notice of Motion and written submission. 7.The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground of appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any viable ground of appeal. 8.In our view, the intended appeal is plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 8 July 2019 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 121/2019