|
CACV 197/2021
[2021] HKCA 1582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 197 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2249 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
AVTAR SINGH |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Barma and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
7 October 2021 |
| Date of Judgment: |
3 November 2021 |
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. The applicant is an Indian national whose non‑refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge To,[1] and his appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 14 September 2021.[2]
2. The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 28 September 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that this Court (1) failed to consider his fear that his enemies would kill him or harm him upon refoulement; (2) failed to consider his fears and his claims properly with respect to BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks; and (3) failed to consider the country of origin conditions.
4. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application will be dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.
5. In his written submissions dated 7 October 2021, the applicant contends that the courts did not follow the requisite high standard of fairness, that his claim was based on the true story of his life, that the decision‑makers did not observe his fear properly, and that his life would be at risk if he returned to his own country.
6. Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|