Re Matharu Jaspreet Singh

CACV 432/2022, [2024] HKCA 955

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 3268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 432 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2526 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 22 February 2023, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 25 October 2022 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 February 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“… there [is] some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favor on reject my claims. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COL information. Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Court’s prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal representation could you please provide me and consider my real situation and safe my life’s as a human being Bundle of thanks.”

4.In his written submissions lodged on 13 March 2023, the applicant repeated his complaints and dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Director and the Board, as well as the dangers he may face should he be refouled.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 February 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person