RE AMARJEET SINGH

CACV 259/2020

[2021] HKCA 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1772 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  By a judgment dated 29 December 2020 ([2020] HKCA 1082), this Court (Yeung VP and Toh J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 7 July 2020 in HCAL 1772/2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 13 August 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 29 January 2016 and 3 October 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 11 January 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He did not provide any grounds of appeal save for urging the court to allow his appeal to proceed.

3.  In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 January 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 25 January 2021. 

4.  In the written submissions, he advanced the following:

(1)  His life will become worse if refouled and he was not satisfied with all the decisions made in his case.

(2)  The points in his case were ignored and the decisions were not transparent.  The situation of his country is much different as the decision-makers might think and it is hard for him to live and stand in front of his enemies.

(3)  Torture and deaths are common in police custody in India.  The police and other law making authorities are corrupt and would only support those people who bribe them.  It is difficult to get justice unless one is rich or with political background.

(4)  It was impossible for him to go back to India at the present stage and he urged the court to understand his problem and let him stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved.

5.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

7.  The applicant failed to raise any discernible grounds to disturb our judgment and nothing set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid ground of appeal to Court of Final Appeal.  As explained at [12] of our judgment, the applicant’s case was rejected on the issue of credibility that there is no evidence suggesting that his personal safety was at risk in India and thus, the Board found no risk of harm of the applicant if refouled.  Further, as the alleged incident of assault was private in nature, reasonable state protection is available and internal relocation is a viable option.  In the circumstances, we see no merit in any of complaints set out in the written submissions.

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 29 December 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order. None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.