Re Rajbir Singh

CACV 348/2020

[2021] HKCA 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 348 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2885/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  17 March 2021

Date of Judgment:  26 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

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

1.On 3 March 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 18 February 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 30 July 2020 by which the judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“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.

3.In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“1.  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 refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2.  There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

3.  Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

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

4.The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 17 March 2021.  Those submissions are nearly identical to his previous written submissions lodged for the purpose of his substantive appeal which the Court had already addressed and rejected in the judgment of 18 February 2021.

5.The Applicant’s submissions did not engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 18 February 2021 for dismissing his substantive appeal.  Nor did he raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing that judgment.  

6.In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

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

The applicant acting in person