Re Rishabh Pal Singh

CACV 133/2023, [2023] HKCA 893

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 20 OF 2019)

________________

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To of 21 April 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 18 July 2023. Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 May 2023, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 26 June 2023 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper. After the case was vacated, the applicant filed his submission on 26 June 2023. The Court will take into consideration his submission in our decision.

2)  Factual background

3.The applicant is a national of India. He first entered Hong Kong in March 2015 and was permitted to stay as a visitor but he overstayed. In May 2015, he was arrested by the police for overstaying and two days thereafter he made a non-refoulement claim on 20 May 2015.

4.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his uncle Davinder Singh and his 2 sons owing to a land dispute.

5.The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4]-[13].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 23 March 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 29 March 2018. After a hearing held on 29 October 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 28 December 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.The Board found that the applicant’s account of events despite repeated requests for details and clarification was vague and lacking in particulars. There was a significant amount of inconsistencies and contradictions. Crucially, the applicant could not satisfactorily account for the point in time when he had the intention to seek protection in Hong Kong. At one stage the applicant said that he knew about the availability of protection in Hong Kong before leaving India. At another stage, he said that he did not have any information about protection when he arrived in Hong Kong. The Board found that the applicant’s case was vague and unbelievable in both his oral and written case. The Board did not accept that there was any dispute between him and his uncle Davinder. Even if there was a dispute it was confined to his local area. Davinder was not an influential figure. The level of risk of harm was low. Even if there was such a dispute, the matter was personal.

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.The applicant filed his Form 86 and supporting affirmation. No proper grounds of his intended appeal were provided.

10.The Judge held that the applicant did not specify any error of law or procedural unfairness. He held that the Board correctly set out the law and found that the applicant failed to prove the factual basis of his claim. The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving his fears and risks. The proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that his life will be in great peril if he returns to India.

12.In the applicant’s supporting affirmation no grounds of appeal were provided.

13.In the applicant’s written submissions, he repeated factual matters and cited statutory authority and annexed certain case authority without specifying how they relate to his case or how they show that there was error of law in the Judge’s decision.

7)  Our view

14.We are of the view that the applicant’s documents consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant’s appeal is without merits. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

15.It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

16.We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person