Subhash Chander v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 340/2020

[2021] HKCA 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 340 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1694 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  9 March 2021

Date of Judgment:  27 September 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This court (Hon Lam VP and Yuen JA)  handed down judgment on 18 February 2021 ([2021] HKCA 175)  (“the Judgment”)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 30 July 2020 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.On 10 August 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal in CACV 340/2020 before this court to appeal the Judge’s Decision.  For reasons set out in the Judgment, it was dismissed.

3.On 26 February 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to request for Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my case. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because there were totally relay (sic)  on news and post on web which is not real matter in actual. Because its toward to my life in my home land in India. I do not go back to India because my life in danger in my home country in India. So I would like to request please pay intation (sic)  [attention] to my case.”

4.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 March 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 March 2021.  The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do, we proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.In his written submissions, the applicant advanced the following grounds:

(1)  He disagrees with the decisions made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as they were not determined fairly.

(2)  There was procedural unfairness throughout the case in that the authorities tried to dispose of his case as quickly as possible.

(3)  He was not fully informed of his rights or given the opportunity to be heard with the necessary assistance.

(4)  There was a lack of legal and language assistance for his claim on BOR 2 risk as opposed to his claims on other applicable grounds and he believed such assistance was essential.

(5)  The lack of legal assistance caused prejudice to him as the Duty Lawyer Service was provided and referred by the Director, and should there be any change of policy of referral, he should be notified.

(6)  All acts of the authorities were highly discriminatory and unfair to him.

6.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.The applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.    

8.Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 26 February 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person