Jaspreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 197/2019

[2019] HKCA 1129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 197 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 874 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA and Toh J in Court

Date of Written Submission: 9 September 2019

Date of Judgment: 14 October 2019

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (handing down the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 16 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 923) dismissing his appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 12 April 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 926) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Decision dated 27 November 2015 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 13 June 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

3.The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decisions and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 3 November 2017.

4.He filed a Form 86 on 13 November 2017 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 12 April 2019.

5.The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 25 April 2019.  The appeal was heard on 13 August 2019.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 16 August 2019.

6.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 26 August 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 9 September 2019.

7.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 28 August 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We think it appropriate to do so and will determine this application on paper.

The grounds of appeal

8.In the notice of motion, the applicant only stated that he has problem in his own country and asked the court to further process his case.

9.His contentions stated in his written submission may be summarized as follows:

(1)  He cannot do anything to his enemies because they have lots of power.  They can trace him anywhere in India. 

(2)  Due to the corrupt system, common people are helpless and only strong people can survive.  The police and other law-making authorities also give favour to strong people.

(3)  He may be tortured or killed if he goes back to his country.

(4)  The decision is unfair and removed from reality.

Discussion and disposition

10.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 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.

11.The applicant’s grounds of appeal do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  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).  He has not advanced any reasonably arguable grounds to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.We therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person