Re: Toor Inderjeet Singh

CACV 109/2019

[2020] HKCA 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 109 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1110/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 1 August 2019, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 27 February 2019 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 12 August 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The judgment has made stated is ‘no merit’ in the appeal, it is not true. On the strength of the grounds not made by my lawyer about his poor performance and mistake was my lawyer that due time be.

The Court of First Instance the honourable judge not consider my situation, that time I was detain in Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre.  I got married in Hong Kong.  I don’t want to go back India and leave my wife alone here.  Please reconsider my case.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 23 August 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.  He submitted that he did not have adequate legal representation and this should have been considered.  He also submitted that this court has failed to consider the risks he would face upon his return.

5.On 31 December 2019, the applicant lodged a supplemental written submission without leave.  As stated in the order by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 14 August 2019, any further written submission lodged without leave would not be considered.  In any event, those submissions consist of general statements of law and citations from well known authorities with no attempt to relate them to the facts of this case.  They thus do not assist the applicant. 

6.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 the documents filed.

7.The matters stated by the applicant 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.  

8.We have already dealt with the bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return at [15] of our judgment.

9.As for the lack of legal representation, we have repeatedly held that a non-refoulement claimant is not automatically entitled to legal representation at all stages of the proceedings.  In any event, the applicant failed to show any prejudice from the lack of legal representation.

10.Lastly, the applicant’s marriage with a Hong Kong citizen is not itself a ground for judicial review or a ground of appeal.

11.In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

13.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 August 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person