Re Chinnathambi Raja

CACV 100/2021

[2021] HKCA 1157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1145 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Hearing : 2 August 2021

Date of Judgment : 6 August 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“Judge”) of 8 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2)  Factual background

2.1The applicant is a national of India. He came to Hong Kong on 29 November 2014 as a visitor but he overstayed.  He made a non-refoulement claim on 20 December 2014.

2.2The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by members of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) because he attacked one Rajanayagam, and he was also a supporter of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

2.3The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [5].

3)  The Director’s Decision

3.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 8 August 2017.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 16 August 2017.  An oral hearing was held by the Board on 20 February 2018.  The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 15 June 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

4.2The Board found that the applicant’s claim was incredible.  The Board did not believe that the applicant was able to hit Rajanayagam in the head when more than 50 of his followers were present at the scene.  The allegation that he was able to escape these 50 followers was also incredible.  Amongst other incredible allegations, after almost three years of purported non-violence, the applicant claimed that his father was severely beaten by the applicant’s enemies right after his interview with the Director of Immigration.  The Board found this incredible.  The Board found no real risk of the applicant returning to India.  

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.1The applicant filed his Form 86 and supporting affirmation.  He alleged that his life was in danger if he returns.

5.2The Judge held on 8 March 2021 that assessment of evidence and country of origin information was within the province of the Board.  He found no error or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision.  Leave for judicial review was refused.

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.1The applicant filed his notice of appeal within time.  From the best that could be read from the applicant’s handwriting, he stated that there was a failure to consider the threats, and a failure to give reasons.

6.2In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated that there is still political violence in his home country which leads to his life in danger.  He stated that the Board and the Director failed to give reasons.

7)  Our view

7.1We are of the view that the above are all bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong  v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39]. 

7.2It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

7.3We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person