Re Khosa Navkiran Singh

CACV 454/2019

[2020] HKCA 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 454 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 884 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 27 May 2020, the applicant filed his Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s (Au JA and ST Poon J) judgment of 21 May 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 332.

2.In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 25 September 2019 [2019] HKCFI 2289 refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

5.The Applicant has set out the following matters in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“1.  The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director of whereby the director and the adjudicator was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2.  The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the director of Immigration.

3.  I will face hardship if I return to my country(India) and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or is simply hearsay.

4.  The Judge did not apply the law properly.” [sic]

6.The applicant’s written submissions of 11 June 2020 in support of this application is identical to his written submissions of 17 January 2020 that was placed before us on appeal.  The arguments therein had been rejected by us with reasons at paragraph 23 of the Judgment.

7.In our view, the matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Motion are mere general and bare assertions and the arguments in his written submissions only repeated those argued and rejected by us.  Other than that, he did not raise any valid and particularized grounds for disturbing the Judgment.

8.These are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.

9.Further, the applicant failed to show any question of great general or public importance or otherwise which ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. Plainly, the statutory requirements under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO are not met.

10.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person.