RE PARMINDER SINGH

CACV 543/2020

[2021] HKCA 1134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 543OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1018/2018)

________________________

________________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.  Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 20 May 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment of this court (Yeung VP and Lisa Wong J) dated 10 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 649) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 23 September 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 2403) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 20 December 2017 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.  Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree with the Registrar that paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA if 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.  In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (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.”

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Registrar’s directions dated 24 May 2021, on 28 May 2021, the applicant lodged written submission by which he largely repeated his written submission dated 24 March 2021 which was duly set out at [13] of the Judgment and which we will not repeat here.

Discussion

6.  The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

8.  While the applicant alleged in his notice of motion and written submission hat he would face danger if refouled, as explained at [17] of the Judgment, his bare assertion of risk of life or torture in India is inconsistent with the Board’s findings that there is no evidence to suggest any real chance of harm to the applicant if refouled and that any such risk (if present) will be lowered or even negated by the existence of reasonable state protection and viable internal relocation options. 

9.  Neither the applicant’s notice of motion nor written submission has engaged the reasons given in the Judgment.  Although the applicant expressed disagreement with the Judgment, he has not articulated in what way(s) this court had gone wrong.

10.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.