Ghuman Jagtar Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 263/2022

[2023] HKCA 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 263 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 399 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  11 January 2023

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.On 3 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 21 June 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 March 2018.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 23 November 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states 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 violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

[5] The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

[6] 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 has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 23 November 2022.

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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or 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, acting in person