Re Mr. Nahar Singh

CAMP 30/2019

[2019] HKCA 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 30 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 601 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 14 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 856), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Anthony Chan J (“the Judge”) dated 21 June 2018 in HCAL 601/2017 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 10 September 2015.

2.By a notice of motion dated 27 August 2019, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some errors in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occurs different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The officer and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this 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 not reasonable.”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 August 2019, the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 10 September 2019 but he failed to do so.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

4.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 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.  Here, the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected the applicant’s claim on the issue of credibility and his case only involved some private disputes without any political or state instigation or acquiescence.  As stated in [17] of our judgment, we agreed with the Judge’s decision that it was open for the Board to come to its findings and conclusions and we found no errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality for us to intervene.

5.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

6.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person