Amandeep Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 393/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 March 2021.
1. On 11 December 2019, this Court (Chu JA and S T Poon J) handed down our judgment [1] (the “Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 16 August 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 393/2019 [2021] HKCA 339 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 393 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1621 of 2018) ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Cheung JA, Hon Chu JA and S T Poon J in Court Date of Written Submissions: 24 December 2019 Date of Judgment: 24 March 2021 ________________ JUDGMENT ________________ Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 11 December 2019, this Court (Chu JA and S T Poon J) handed down our judgment[1] (the “Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 16 August 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim. 2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 16 December 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 24 December 2019. 3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 18 December 2019, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper. 4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:
5.In the written submissions the applicant repeated largely his skeleton submissions filed on 4 November 2019 in support of his appeal to this court. The grounds and arguments of the applicant had already been dealt with by this court in paragraphs 8 to 14 of our Judgment. 6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 7.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion. 8.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 9.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 10.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 16 December 2019 is dismissed.
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 393/2019