Re Sarbjeet Singh

CAMP 404/2021

[2022] HKCA 1627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 404 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 596 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision:  1 November 2022

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1.On 29 April 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 598)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang given on 9 March 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 10 May 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 not lodged written submission by the stipulated deadline.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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 in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

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 grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion are summarized as follows :

1)  The Judges were wrong not having applied the principles of procedural unfairness;

2)  The Judges were wrong not having applied the principle of irrationality;

3)  The decision maker relied on COL information which favours on rejecting the applicant’s claim;

4)  Courts ignore the overwhelming of evidence of violence;

5)  The Judge did not apply the law properly; and

6)  The applicant will be killed or harmed if he returns home.

7.We are of the view that the grounds 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.

8.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person