Re Kulwant Singh

CACV 239/2020

[2021] HKCA 478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1404 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.By a judgment dated 28 January 2021 ([2021] HKCA 76), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 22 June 2020 in HCAL 1404/2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 7 June 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 21 June 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 8 February 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He did not provide any grounds of appeal save for urging the court to allow his appeal to proceed.

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 February 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 22 February 2021. 

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.In his written submissions, he stated that it is dangerous for him to return to India as his enemies were powerful and the Indian police would not protect him as they received bribe from his enemies.  He urged the court to let him stay in Hong Kong.

6.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. 

7.The applicant failed to raise any discernible grounds to disturb our judgment and nothing set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid grounds of appeal to Court of Final Appeal.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 28 January 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order. None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

9.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.