MANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 236/2022, [2024] HKCA 25

On Appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 236 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2537 OF 2018)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 7 June 2023, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 2 November 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 April 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 21 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 7 June 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that (i) the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural fairness, (ii) the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality, (iii) there is some error of law in the decision, (iv) “[a]ctual life occurs in different situations than mentioned in COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining”; and (v) “[t]he Judge did not apply the law properly and Procedural unfairness”. These are bare allegations without particulars.

4.  In his written submissions dated 13 December 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant or applicable to his intended appeal.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.