向終審法院上訴的許可申請？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：關淑馨副庭長、張澤登上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2020年11月27日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Jagg Singh是一名印度國民，他提出不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim)，理由是若被遣返印度，他將會受到國大黨支持者Jageera的傷害或殺害。他的聲請被入境事務處處長及酷刑聲請上訴委員會駁回。申請人其後向上訴法庭申請許可，就高等法院原訟法庭法官駁回其司法覆核許可申請的決定提出上訴，但因逾期提出申請而被拒絕。本案是申請人向上訴法庭申請許可，以向終審法院提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人是否有充分理據獲准向終審法院上訴。申請人提出的上訴理由包括：法官未有正確應用程序不公 (procedural unfairness) 原則及不合理性 (irrationality) 原則；決定不合理及不公平；以及法官未有妥善應用法律。上訴法庭需判斷這些理由是否構成具有重大普遍重要性或公眾重要性的問題，足以提交終審法院審理。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條，審視申請人提出的上訴理由。法庭認為，申請人未能證明其擬提出的上訴具有任何實質理據，特別是未能證明上訴法庭駁回其申請有任何可合理爭辯的錯誤。此外，申請人亦未能指出任何具有重大普遍重要性或公眾重要性的問題，應提交終審法院裁決。因此，法庭裁定沒有基礎批准上訴許可。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人於2020年11月6日提交的申請通知書，拒絕其向終審法院提出上訴的許可申請。申請人未能證明其上訴有任何理據或涉及重大公眾重要性問題。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 27 November 2020 ### Factual Background The applicant, Jagg Singh, an Indian national, made a non-refoulement claim, asserting he would be harmed or killed by a supporter of the Congress Party named Jageera if repatriated to India. His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The applicant subsequently sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against a High Court judge's decision to dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review, but this was refused due to being out of time. This case concerns the applicant's application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the applicant had sufficient grounds to be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant's grounds of appeal included: judges erred in not applying principles of procedural unfairness and irrationality; decisions were unreasonable and unfair; and judges did not properly apply the law. The Court of Appeal had to determine if these grounds raised questions of great general or public importance warranting submission to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reviewed the applicant's grounds for appeal under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any merits in his intended appeal, specifically that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his application. Furthermore, he failed to identify any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. Consequently, the Court concluded there was no basis to grant leave to appeal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 6 November 2020, thereby refusing his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant failed to show any merits in his appeal or any question of great public importance. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.