BALJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 20/2022

[2022] HKCA 1083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 20 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 239 OF 2015 and HCAL 722 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 17 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 30 December 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in HCAL 239/2015 and HCAL 722/2019 (consolidated).

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 23 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“I am the applicant herein. In the order give to the court, there is some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claims. Actual life occurs different situation the mentioned COI 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 silverlining. The decision is betray bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and … calcute to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal representative. Could you please provide me and consider my real situation and safe my life’s as a human being…”

3.  In his written submissions dated 4 July 2022, the Applicant makes some general complaints against the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Court.  Attached to his written submissions is a document which sets out some general statements or principles relating to non-refoulement claims.  The Applicant has failed to point to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.

4.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of 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.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.