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

CACV 232/2023, [2024] HKCA 560

On Appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 232 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1013 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1.  On 20 July 2023, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung 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 15 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 May 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 said order of the Judge. 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 28 May 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he disagrees with the decision of the Court of Appeal. He alleges that his family is unable to solve his problem in his home country, and his enemies are very dangerous. Hence, his problem in his home country still exists.

4.  In his written submissions dated 11 June 2024, the Applicant alleges that he will face a serious risk to his life in his home country, the Director and the Adjudicator did not scrutinize his claim properly, and the Adjudicator failed to give him a sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence. He also complains that the decision of the judge was wrong as a matter of law, and the judge failed to apply “high standards of fairness” in the review or the principle of procedural fairness.

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.  The Applicant’s complaints in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. He has also failed to give any good or valid explanation for his substantial delay in applying for leave to appeal.

8.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended 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.

9.  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.

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