Re Badal Singh

Read the full judgment text of CAMP 444/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 June 2022.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. [1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that d

Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases

Case No.CAMP 444/2021[2022] HKCA 780
Court
Court of Appeal
Date07 Jun 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CAMP 444/2021

[2022] HKCA 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 444 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1832 OF 2018)

____________

RE: BADAL SINGH Applicant

____________

Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 18 May 2022

Date of Judgment: 7 June 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________


Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 4 May 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

3.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated he wished the CFA would consider his application for leave for judicial review. In his written submissions lodged on 18 May 2022, he said that he faced threats to his life in his own country and that his blood would “become ice” whenever he remembered the activities of his enemies. He said like other asylum seekers he wanted to go to the CFA.

4.This application has to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Godfrey Lam) (Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 444/2021