Gatoda Amrik Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of CACV 442/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 May 2021.
1. On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 2 September 2020 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.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 442/2020 [2021] HKCA 681 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 442 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 697 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Cheung, Barma JJA and S T Poon J in Court Date of Written Submission: 31 March 2021 Date of Judgment: 21 May 2021 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 2 September 2020 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 24 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that (sic):
4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 31 March 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He also claimed that the authorities in India are corrupt and will not protect him. He wants to stay in Hong Kong until his problems are resolved. 5.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. 6.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. 7.At [21] of our judgment, we held that there was no public law error in the Board’s Decision and the applicant did not identify any error in our judgment. The Board has already held that his claim for non-refoulement protection was not credible and in any event state protection would be available to him and internal relocation would be viable. The ground based on the alleged danger upon his return therefore does not appear to us to be reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 9.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 March 2021 is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 442/2020