Re Bhare Amandeep Singh

CACV 216/2020

[2021] HKCA 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 216 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 81 OF 2018)

____________

____________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Au JA and G Lam J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 18 January 2021

Date of Decision: 9 February 2021

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Hon G Lam J (giving Decision of the Court):

1.On 5 January 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 15 December 2020.[1] By that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 16 June 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.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 (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or of the CFA if 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 CFA for decision.

3.In his Notice of Motion, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application (referring to this court as the “Judge”):

(1)  the Torture Claims Appeal Board relied on simple hearsay;

(2)  the Judge did not verify all matters given to the Court on the previous occasion, and the Court’s decision was based on some incorrect information;

(3)  the Judge erred in law in not having applied the principle of irrationality to the Director of Immigration’s and the Board’s decisions;

(4)  the Judge did not properly analyze the Applicant’s problems in his home country;

(5)  the Judge reviewed the Applicant’s claim lightly, which is not in line with the required high standard of fairness;

(6)  if the Applicant returns to his country, he will be killed by his enemy who is still looking for him.

4.Except for the second and last grounds summarized above, all of these grounds had been raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to this Court and in his written submissions for the appeal proper, and had been considered and dealt with in our judgment of 15 December 2020. 

5.For the second ground, the Applicant has not specified what matters needed to be but were not verified; if any information was not verified or was incorrect, it was incumbent upon the Applicant to bring this to the Court’s attention at or before the hearing, but the Applicant did not do so.  In any event, even now he has not provided any particulars of any allegedly incorrect or unverified information.  As such, this ground is not reasonably arguable. 

6.As for the last ground, this was the basis of the Applicant’s non‑refoulement claim which had already been considered by the Director and the Board.  The Applicant has not been able to show there was any reviewable error in those decisions, as found by the Deputy Judge below and by this court on appeal.

7.Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the Applicant lodged written submissions for his application on 18 January 2021.  He in effect simply reiterated the same arguments in his previous written submissions for the appeal to this Court. 

8.In our opinion the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions do not identify any specific error in our judgment.  Nor do we find there is any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination, or any other reason why leave to appeal should be given.

9.For these reasons, the Applicant’s Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person