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

CAMP 42/2024, [2024] HKCA 1134

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 42 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1154 OF 2019)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 15 October 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 16 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant asserted that there was an error of law in the decision, that the decision-maker simply relied on country of origin information but the actual situation differed, that the officials and courts ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities, and that the position betrayed a biased and formulaic approach and was clearly not reasonable.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 1 November 2024, the applicant merely quoted passages from previous court decisions and statutes and asserted that the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility. No particular was given for the assertion.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.