Amanjeet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CAMP 96 /2020

[2021] HKCA 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 96 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1191 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Chu JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 10 March 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving 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 (Kwan VP and Chu JA) handed down on 29 January 2021 ([2021] HKCA 96) refusing to grant leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim^[1].

2.The applicant is a national of India.  His non-refoulement claim was made on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s family who opposed their relationship.  He filed his Notice of Motion on 2 February 2021.

3.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 3 February 2021 that the applicant should lodge written submissions in support of his notice of motion on or before 16 February 2021 and that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the direction or the expiry of the time for the compliance of the direction.  The applicant did not lodge any written submission as directed.  As the time for compliance with the said directions has expired, and, having considered the papers, this court considers it appropriate to determine this application on paper, we will proceed accordingly.

4.The applicant took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan.  His application was late by 6 days.  It was refused by the judge on 24 June 2020^[2].  The applicant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal on 13 July 2020.

5.On 29 January 2021, the Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan because the applicant does not have any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.In the Notice of Motion filed on 2 February 2021, the applicant stated as his grounds of appeal that he has no way to return to India to save his life and he does not want to return so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.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.

8.In the present application, the applicant has not shown any merits in his intended appeal.  In particular, he has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his application.  He has also 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).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 2 February 2021.

The Applicant, acting in person