Re Kang Sohan Singh

CACV 585/2021

[2022] HKCA 1466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1387 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 14 April 2022, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 524) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 April 2021 who refused to grant extension of time for leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 26 April 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged written submissions on 10 May 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out at [3] and [4] in our judgment.  We shall not repeat them here.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The applicant’s grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion, which appears to be copied from some proforma seen often in these type of proceedings, are as follows :

‘ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of procedural fairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. There is some error in law in my decision.  The decision maker just relied on COL [sic] information [and] my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

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

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

6. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country.  I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.’

7.As for the applicant’s written submissions, they are regrettably again copied in verbatim from the submissions previously before this Court filed on 30 December 2021.  As we have dealt with these contentions at [12] in our previous judgment, we will not repeat it here. 

8.In the circumstances, we are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.We further do not see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 26 April 2022.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person