CHOHAN SUKHWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 171/2024, [2025] HKCA 301

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1675 &

[2024] HKCFI 2114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 171 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1710 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 24 June 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 June 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 February 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 4 March 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the CA Judgment. He alleges that the decision makers did not consider his claim properly. He also states that his problem in his home country is very severe, and he will be killed by his enemy if he returns to his home country.

4.  In his written submissions dated 18 March 2025, the Applicant repeats his assertion that he has a severe problem and faces a serious risk to his life in his home country. He alleges generally that the Director and the Board failed to scrutinise his claim properly. He also alleges that the judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality or the principle of procedural fairness, reviewed the matter “lightly”, and failed to give him a sufficient chance to arrange evidence relevant to his claim. He asks the court to give him “some time” to submit “some documents” in support of his case.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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 Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. The Applicant has failed to identify what documents he wishes to submit in support of his claim. There is no basis for his request to be given time to submit such unspecified documents. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

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