RE MANINDER SINGH

CACV 287/2018

[2019] HKCA 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 168 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 31 October 2018, this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC, Poon and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 22 June 2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 3 August 2017 and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 17 January 2018 respectively.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 12 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

(i)   There were errors of law in the decisions against him and the decision makers just relied on the country of origin information (“COI”) and the factual information which were against him in order to reject his claim. 

(ii)   The actual life in India was different from what was mentioned the COI and the Indian officers and courts preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. Thus, the decisions to reject his claim were bias, formulated and calculated.  

4.  Pursuant to the direction given by Master Au-yeung on 15 November 2018, the applicant should lodge his written submission on or before 26 November 2018.  The applicant only lodged his written submissions on 27 November 2018.  Since delay is not substantial, we shall excuse it.  In substance, the applicant reiterated the factual background of his case as advanced before the Director and the Board and claimed that he would face risk of harm if he were refouled to his home country.

5.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Here, the applicant just reiterated his complaint and disagreement against the decisions made by the Director and the Board which were duly considered and correctly rejected by the Judge at the lower court hearing.  The applicant did not have reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings.

7.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgement of 31 October 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submission involve an arguable point or is a question of great general or public importance.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

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