Re Gurjit Singh

CACV 464/2020

[2021] HKCA 1902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 464 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 718/2018)

________________________

________________________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 27 May 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 21 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 723) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 2 September 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 2208) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 13 April 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim (“NRF Claim”).

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):

“The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not satisfy on this total process. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. Please allow me”

5.On 28 May 2021, the Registrar directed, pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant to lodge his written submission on or before 10 June 2021.  In breach of such direction, the applicant did not file his written submission until 2 August 2021.  However, we are prepared to, and hereby, grant the applicant retrospective leave to file his written submission out of time.

6.By such late written submission, the applicant submitted as follows (sic):

“My name is Gurjit Singh. I am from India. My language is Punjabi. I am from India. I am a shikh in my faith. I came Hong Kong for my life safety. My enemy want to kill me. My enemy is very powerfull. Very soon after I arrived in Hong Kong I applied nonrefoulement claim. The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. Was very sorry. I came to the high Court for leave to apply for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave. Now I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. Mat be I will prove my claim there and I wish my leave will be granted there”

Discussion

7.The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

8.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.Neither the notice of motion nor the applicant’s written submission engages the reasons given in the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment. He just claimed to be dissatisfied with the Judgment (and the other decisions on the NRF Claim) without giving any reasons or particulars.  Further, as noted in [10] of the Judgment, the Board found that the applicant is not at risk from any of the proscribed harms in the reasonably foreseeable future and that the alleged risk, if any, is localised and can therefore be averted by internal relocation. The applicant’s repeated bare assertion in his written submission that he has enemies who want to kill him contradicts such findings of fact.  Yet, the applicant has not articulated any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board that rendered such findings unsafe.  In our view, he has not put forward any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

10.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person