RE WARYAM SINGH

CACV 177/2018

[2018] HKCA 855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 177 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 805/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 24 September 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 11 May 2018 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 a 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 5 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The grounds in the notice of motion are apparently related to [14] of our judgment.  The applicant said that:

(1) he does not understand English and his friends are not under any duty to ensure that all the grounds for seeking leave for judicial review are communicated accurately;

(2) he did not have language assistance before the leave application; and

(3) the lack of a translated non-refoulement claim form (NCF) is highly unfair.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 19 October 2018.  In his written submission, the applicant submitted that he still suffers from the lack of language assistance.  No judgment or decision (other than the Notice of Decision) had been read to the applicant through an interpreter and this is unfair to him.

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 his notice of motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with 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 in his notice of motion and his written submission.  We note the applicant had only raised before us a single ground of appeal based on the lack of translation of the NCF.  Therefore, the other grounds relied on by the applicant are new arguments.  We do not see any good reason why we should allow the applicant to rely on these new arguments at this stage. Further, the applicant failed to substantiate the ground based on the lack of translation of the NCF as we explained in our judgment at [14].  In our view, the matters raised by the applicant are plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 5 October 2018 is dismissed.