Gaganjeet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 270/2021

[2021] HKCA 1941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 270 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 927 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 29 November 2021

Date of Judgment:  22 December 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 8 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 8 October 2020 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 30 April 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 15 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants alleges generally as follows:

“1 The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2 The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3 There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4 Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5 The Judge did not apply the law properly.

6 Procedural unfairness.

7 I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country.  I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.”

3.The Applicant’s written submissions dated 29 November 2021 merely set out some general principles of public law relating to non-refoulement claims.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person