Re Harbhajan Singh
Read the full judgment text of CACV 207/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 December 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court i
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 207/2022 [2022] HKCA 1737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2022 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 546 of 2019) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Andrew Chan J (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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 19 September 2022.[2] 2.By Notice of Motion filed on 21 October 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. Essentially, the applicant stated that all the decisions made including the judgments in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal were wrong. The Applicant would like to challenge those decisions. 3.In his written submissions lodged on 4 November 2022, the applicant simply reiterated the same without going into details and / or specifics. 4.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, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1. 5.We take the view that this application ought 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 the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. 6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 207/2022