Re Karamjit Singh

CACV 500/2018

[2019] HKCA 632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 500 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1141/2017)

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

Before: Hon Barma, McWalters and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 14 June 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 26 February 2019, this court (Barma, McWalters and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 28 September 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 the 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 13 March 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favor or reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information officers and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly assess the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims.”

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 21 March 2019.  In his written submission, the applicant submitted that his life will be in danger upon his return.  He included some of the documents filed below with his submissions.

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 and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by 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.  

7.We have dealt with the issue regarding the alleged danger to him upon his return at [16] of our judgment.  As for the complaint regarding Country of Origin Information (COI), this is not a ground raised in the appeal.  As we have explained before, it is not the practice of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in the hearing before it;[2] nor generally is it the practice of the Court of Final Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court of Appeal.[3]

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 13 March 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person