HARPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CACV 148/2019

[2019] HKCA 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 148 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 491 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 28 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 720), dismissing his appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Decision dated 2 September 2016 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 11 July 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

3.  The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decisions and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 8 March 2018.

4.  He filed a Form 86 on 27 March 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director and the Board.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 19 March 2019.

5.  The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 26 March 2019.  The hearing of the appeal was vacated as the applicant failed to lodge his skeleton argument by the time prescribed under the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 April 2019. The appeal was dealt with on paper.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 June 2019 as there is no merit in the appeal and no realistic prospect of success in the intended application for judicial review.

6.  The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 2 July 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submission on 15 July 2019.

7.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that he is not satisfied with the Board’s decision, it will lead his life towards more danger and the decision is not fair and transparent.

8.  In his written submission, he reiterated his alleged suffering and problems in India.  He also submitted that he does not have enough resources to protect himself.

9.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 8 July 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We think it is appropriate to do so and will determine this application on paper.

Discussion and disposition

10.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

11.  The applicant has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his appeal.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  We therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.