Md Sohil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another

CACV 473/2020

[2022] HKCA 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 473 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 688 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Hon S T Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  25 May 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 7 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 3 September 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 9 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that :

“…I would like to inform court some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which favor on reject my appeal in court and my claims. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COI information. Board member Director of Immigration and Hong Kong High Court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my appeal and my claims. I am requested to court could you please save my life’s – Bundle of thanks.” [sic]

4.In the affirmation filed on 9 June 2021, the applicant deposed that:

“…I would like to inform court I am Indian national I want to inform court my life is danger if I return go back my home country I have great peril if I return I am requested to court could you please save my life’s bundle of thanks.” [sic]

5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 22 June 2021. In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why it is unsafe for him to return. He identified a number of alleged errors by the Board and requested legal and interpretation assistance from the Duty Lawyers Service.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.

7.We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the application. We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the application.

8.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.

9.The applicant claimed that the court ignored the violence towards minorities but he failed to provide any particulars for this claim. In our view, this ground is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. As for the rest of the grounds of application, they do not identify any error in our judgment and they are therefore not viable grounds of application.

10.In the written submission, the applicant asked for assistance from the Duty Lawyer Service. The applicant failed to show how this request would have a material impact on the present application and in any event this request should be directed towards the Duty Lawyer Service and not to the court.

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

12.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 9 June 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person