Re Lakhwinder Singh
Read the full judgment text of CACV 641/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 December 2021.
1. On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li (“the judge”) on 4 December 2020 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 the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 641/2020 [2021] HKCA 1965 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 641 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1897/2018) ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Barma JA and Linda Chan J in Court Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li (“the judge”) on 4 December 2020 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 the 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 filed on 27 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 2 August 2021. In the written submission, the applicant expanded on the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He asked for permission to stay in Hong Kong until his problems are resolved. 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 documents filed. 6.The matters stated by the applicant 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. 7.All of the grounds advanced by the applicant lacked particulars and we are therefore of the view that none of them is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. Further, neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 July 2021 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 641/2020