SANDHU SHANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CACV 410/2020

[2021] HKCA 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2023 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 24 August 2020 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 decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 24 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration cancel my claim. The High Court refused my leave application, I have no way to stay in Hong Kong, but I did not get justice, to get justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal”

4.  As the applicant failed to comply with the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 March 2021, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.  The applicant complained that the Board and the Director cancelled his claim, but did not identify any error in our judgment. As we have explained in [14] – [15] of our judgment, the focus of the appeal before us was on whether the judge made any error of law.  The applicant failed to provide any valid ground for his application and we are therefore of the view that this application is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 March 2021 is dismissed.