Re Preetpal Singh

CACV 186/2020

[2021] HKCA 1963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 186 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1034/2017)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Linda Chan J in Court

Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 5 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 26 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. 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.

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

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

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

4.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 12 August 2021 where he submitted that:

(1)  the Board failed to meet the high standard of fairness.  The applicant cited a number of cases including Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289 without explaining the relevance of those cases to his application;

(2)  the Board failed to properly assess his credibility; and

(3)  the Board’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed that this court failed to apply the principle of irrationality and “the law” properly.  He did not give any particulars for those grounds and we are therefore of the view that they are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.As for the other grounds advanced in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions, they do not identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 26 July 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person