Sidhu Balbir Singh v. The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 36/2022

[2023] HKCA 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 36 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 601 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 21 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 20 September 2019 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 4 August 2017, which dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 August 2016.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 2 December 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant makes some general complaints about errors of law and irrationality, but fails to identify any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

4.In his written submissions dated 16 December 2023, the Applicant provides some personal background information, sets out some provisions of the ICCPR/Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and refers to some general principles relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but again fails to identify any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

5.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

7.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person