Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 574/2018

[2019] HKCA 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 574OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1009/2017)

_______________

RE:

KARAMJEET SINGH

Applicant

_______________

Before:

Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	23 April 2019
Date of Judgment:	4 June 2019

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 2 April 2019[1] (“Judgment”), this court dismissed the abovenamed applicant’s appeal from Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat’s decision dated 4 December 2018[2] refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeals Board (“Board”)’s decision dated 27 November 2017 in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 9 April 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The notice of motion read as follows:

“I would like to inform you that and also the court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on C.O.I. information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claim.

The Honourable Justice did not address the issue in the skeleton submission on dated 22/02/2019 and I therefore verily believe that the Hon Justice had not consider my appeal thoroughly.”

3.By written submission filed on 23 April 2019, apart from repeating the allegations summarised in paragraph 2 of the Judgment, the applicant said the following in the last 2 paragraphs:

“The judges did not address the skeleton submission dated 22/02/2019. I urge the honourable authorities to take into account the real procedural unfairness throughout the case and to put public policies trying to dispose of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible aside.

I therefore respectfully informing the authorities that the high standard of fairness laid down in my case as a human being I would face real risk.”

4.As summarised in paragraph 13 of the Judgment, by his skeleton submission dated 22 February 2019, the applicant repeated the grounds of appeal set out in paragraph 12 of the Judgment and stressed that it was important to give adequate consideration to his position and experiences and to assess the same against the background information of his country of origin.

5.Insofar as that the applicant is suggesting that we have approached his appeal with a pre-disposition for dismissal with just reference to generic country of origin information without regard to the particular facts and evidence of his case in order to carry out a public policy of disposing of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible, the applicant has not advanced any or any proper basis for so suggesting. The Board assessed his application in detail in a 21-page decision, and made determinations on the facts. As we have stated in paragraph 15 of the Judgment, it is well-established law that a judicial review is not a channel for a re-consideration of facts. The court will scrutinise the Board’s decision, and consider only if there have been errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

6.The applicant has not by his notice of motion or written submission identified any issue of great, general or public importance that should be submitted for determination by the CFA. The statutory criteria laid down in s 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) is thus not met.

7.Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb under s 22(1)(b). As discussed in paragraphs 9 and 17 of the Judgment, the Board disbelieved the applicant and rejected his account of the circumstances that he claims led to his decision to leave India for Hong Kong. This is a finding of fact well within the province of the Board. The Board came to such finding after hearing the applicant and testing his evidence. It provided detailed and plausible reasons to explain why it did not accept the applicant’s testimony. The applicant had not in his Form 86 identified any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Board in making such finding.

8.For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.