Re Manjit Singh

CACV 309/2021

[2022] HKCA 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 531 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Decision:  4 May 2022

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 15 September 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA)  ordered that unless by 4 pm on 29 September 2021 the applicant lodges with the Court two sets of appeal bundle, the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 1 June 2021 be dismissed.

2.The applicant applies, by notice of motion and affirmation filed on 30 December 2021, and written submissions lodged on 17 January 2022, for leave to appeal against our order to the Court of Final Appeal.  On 6 January 2022, the Registrar of Civil Appeals has invited the applicant to consider if an application should be made for relief from sanction by a stipulated time.  If not, the Court will proceed with the notice of motion accordingly.  The applicant did not make any application for relief from sanction by the stipulated time.  We will deal with the present application on paper without an oral hearing. 

3.The applicant stated in his notice of motion :

‘ Director of Immigration and Torture Claim Appeal Board rejected my claim of non-refoulement. I have many question. So I applied leave to apply for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.’

4.In the applicant’s affirmation, he stated that his affirmation was out of time.

5.In his written submissions, he stated that he has ‘life threat in India’.  He stated that the High Court did not find error in proceeding (of the Board), and he did not understand why.  He stated that the Board did not follow the Bill of Rights. 

II.  Our view

6.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion, affirmation or written submissions. 

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

9.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 30 December 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person