Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 585/2020

[2021] HKCA 1905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 585 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1163/2018)

________________________

RE:

HARJIT SINGH

Applicant

________________________

Before:

Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:

16 December 2021

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

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

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 5 July 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 21 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 727) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 20 January 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 91) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 12 June 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, the Adjudicator of Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office rejected my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. Total process I did not get justice, I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal for the great interest of my life.”

5.On 5 July 2021, the applicant filed an affirmation by which he deposed that:

“Affirmation for extend my time to notice of motion as I failed to submit my appeal timely. Please accept my application”

6.By written submission filed on 20 July 2021, the applicant submitted as follows (sic):

“My name is Harjit Singh. My mother language is Punjabi. I am from India. India’s worse social condition gave me problem. There only who have money can do evevery thing. That are legal or illegal no body want to know. To save my life I came Hong Kong and applied non-refoule claim in Hong Kong. One of a immigration officer screen my claim. He did not consider my educational and social status. After that I appeal to the [Board]. The [Board] too dismissed my application. I came to the High Court. The High Court and the [CA] dismissed my claim.

I did not get any judgement from the total way. I wish the [CFA] will Give me my leave.”

Discussion

7.The applicant did not explain the delay in bringing the application. We shall nonetheless deal with the merit of the application.

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

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

10.Neither the notice of motion, affirmation nor the applicant’s written submission has really engaged the reasons given in the Judgment. In particular, neither “India’s worse social situation” nor the applicant’s “educational and social status” is material to the NRF Claim which, as noted in [2] and [3] of the Judgment, was premised upon a fear of harm arising out of a land dispute between the applicant and his paternal uncle.

11.In short, the applicant did not identify any error in the Judgment and has therefore failed to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the CFA.

12.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.