HARPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 493/2024, [2025] HKCA 761

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 493 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 587 OF 2024)

____________

____________

_________________

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 is an Indian national whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 9 April 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 28 May 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the Board was unfair and the procedure was not proper and that its decision did not include specific assessment of the applicant’s case. The applicant also filed an affirmation but as it was not a regular document it had been excluded by the Registrar.

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 12 June 2025. Those submissions merely repeated his general criticisms of the decisions below and his allegations concerning the harm he would face upon repatriation to his home country, together with summaries of or extracts from previous cases but without demonstrating their relevance to the present application. The applicant also included submissions about his current detention but this is not relevant to his claim for non-refoulement protection.

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.