MANINDER KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 1/2021

[2021] HKCA 1422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1068 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 6 July 2021, this court (Hon Yuen, G Lam JJA and Ng J) handed down a judgment ([2021] HKCA 945) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 29 December 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if 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 CFA for decision.

3.  On 15 July 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the CFA on the following grounds:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray as bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 28 July 2021.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do, we proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.  In the applicant’s written submissions, he quoted passages from ST v Director of Immigration^[1] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 and Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289.  He stated some general principles in relation to “high standards of fairness” and “Wednesbury unreasonableness” of an administrative body’s decision.  The Applicant complained that the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.  Lastly, he referred to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance about late filing of notice of appeal to the Board but did not explain the section’s relevance to his leave application. 

6.  The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in our judgment for dismissing his appeal and do not pinpoint any specific error in or raise any discernible grounds for disturbing our judgment. Importantly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or indeed any other reason why his case ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb.    

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give leave to the applicant to appeal to the CFA. The Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed.