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

CAMP 477/2021

[2022] HKCA 1674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 477 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2743 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down on 8 April 2022 ([2022] HKCA 463). The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 16 July 2021 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim[1].

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 6 July 2022 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 July 2022. Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of India. He entered Hong Kong on 17 June 2016 as a visitor and overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 4 July 2016 and raised a non-refoulement claim on the same day. He claimed that if refouled, he would be killed by Dimple Chadha (“Chadha”) who was a member of the Legislative Assembly from the Bharatiya Janata Party, a ruling party in central India, and his assistant Ranjit Singh (“Singh”), because the applicant had previously set up a trap to catch Chadha red-handed while Chadha demanded a bribe from the applicant and the applicant also had an affair with Singh’s wife.

4.  The applicant took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the judge. It was refused by the judge on 30 August 2021[2].

5.  On 21 October 2021, the applicant filed a renewed application for leave to appeal out of time with the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 8 April 2022 as the applicant failed to show any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6.  In the Notice of Motion filed on 6 July 2022, the applicant only stated that he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal without stating any specific grounds of appeal.

7.  In his written submissions, he reiterated the problem he faced in his home country and further submitted as follows:

(1)  The Director of Immigration did not consider his points.

(2)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board did not consider his argument.

(3)  The court did not find error in the proceedings.

(4)  All asylum seekers are facing the same problem so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal for himself and the interest of all asylum seekers.

Analysis and disposition

8.  Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, “the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

9.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

10.  The applicant was late for more than 8 weeks in filing his Notice of Motion. He did not provide any explanation for the delay. There is no good ground to grant extension of time for filing his Notice of Motion.

11.  In any event, the applicant’s submissions are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support. In particular, he failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his application.

12.  Moreover, he has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

13.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 6 July 2022.