RE GOVIND SINGH

CACV 132/2021

[2023] HKCA 402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 132 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 977 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 23 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and L Wong J)  judgment of 16 December 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1893). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 19 March 2021, refusing to grant extension of time and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 740).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I am the applicant herein. In the order give to the court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claims. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COI information Immigration Officer and Hong Kong High Court’s prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence to wards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal represented could you please provide me and consider my real situation and safe my life’s as a human being Bundle of thanks.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 4 January 2022.  In his written submissions, he claimed that the same level of threat still existed in India and he feared to return to his home country “because of domestic violence or sexual assault that [he] experienced there”.  He also asserted that the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalising its decision and failed to inquire from the Indian authorities.  He again repeated that his life would be in great peril if he went back to India and that he had no faith in the authorities.  He also cited section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, but did not state how the provision was relevant to his case.  He further requested for his claim to be assessed with legal and interpretation assistance provided by the duty lawyer service.

6.  In our view, his application is wholly without substance.  The allegations made in his Notice of Motion are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  He did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with any particulars.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  Further, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  In the premises, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.