Re Kwaljeet Singh

CACV 489/2022, [2023] HKCA 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2497 OF 2018)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 11 April 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 417) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 13 December 2022 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 20 April 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The Notice of Motion stated the following as grounds in support of the application:

(1)  There is some error of law in the decision of the applicant’s case.

(2)  The decision maker relied on country of origin information and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim. Actual life situation differs from that mentioned in the country of origin information.

(3)  The officer and the court ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities.

(4)  The decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach and was unreasonable. It is unlikely that the applicant’s danger had been fairly assessed.

7.What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal. Critically, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Further, in light of the Torture Claim Appeals Board’s rejection of his case and finding that he failed to prove any of the facts asserted by him (see [6] of our judgment), there is no factual support for the assertion that the applicant would be in danger, if refouled. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.