Singh Lavpreet v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CACV 285/2023 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 March 2024.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a 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. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 285/2023, [2024] HKCA 190 On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 285 OF 2023 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1379 OF 2020) ____________
____________
_____________________ JUDGMENT _____________________ 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 a 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. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 29 January 2024. 2.By Notice of Motion filed on 30 January 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant merely stated that he did not get justice and wanted to go to the CFA. 3.In his written submissions, the applicant simply reiterated the matters relied upon for his non-refoulement claim. 4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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 because he 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 285/2023