Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Mittal Sanjeev

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 June 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 710
Year2019
Judgement NumberCAMP176/2018
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CAMP176A/2018 RE MITTAL SANJEEV

CAMP 176/2018

[2019] HKCA 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 176 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 832/2017)

-----------------------------------
RE: MITTAL SANJEEV Applicant

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Chu, Barma JA and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 27 June 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1. On 10 April 2019, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 14 September 2018 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 from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2. The facts and issues in the application for an extension of time, 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 dated 23 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims.”

4. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 7 May 2019. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He identified a number of alleged errors by the Director and the Board. He also said that he is married to a permanent resident of Hong Kong and wanted the court to enquire of the Immigration Department why he...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT