|
CACV 442/2020
[2021] HKCA 681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 442 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 697 OF 2018)
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
GATODA AMRIK SINGH |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung, Barma JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Written Submission: 31 March 2021
Date of Judgment: 21 May 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 2 September 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 24 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that (sic):
“Respected Sir/Madam, its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness”
4. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 31 March 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also claimed that the authorities in India are corrupt and will not protect him. He wants to stay in Hong Kong until his problems are resolved.
5. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
7. At [21] of our judgment, we held that there was no public law error in the Board’s Decision and the applicant did not identify any error in our judgment. The Board has already held that his claim for non-refoulement protection was not credible and in any event state protection would be available to him and internal relocation would be viable. The ground based on the alleged danger upon his return therefore does not appear to us to be reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 March 2021 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|