Sekhon Harbans Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 275/2026, [2026] HKCA 1835 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1452 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 275 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 423 OF 2021) ____________
____________
_________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ 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 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. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 25 June 2026. 2.By Notice of Motion filed on 29 June 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant merely stated that his life would be in danger in his home country and asked for at least 4 to 5 years to stay in Hong Kong. 3.The applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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. 4.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. 5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 275/2026