Re Rishabh Pal Singh

CACV 133/2023, [2023] HKCA 987

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)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 24 July 2023 (“Notice of Motion”)  seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against the Judgment of this Court dated 21 July 2023 (“Judgment”)  by which the applicant’s appeal against a decision (“Decision”)  refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)  was dismissed.

2.Contrary to Practice Directions (“PD”)  2.1, para 2, no attempt was made in the Notice of Motion to identify any question that may meet the criteria of s.22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), in respect of which leave is sought to have the same determined by the CFA. 

3.Pursuant to s.22 of the Ordinance, the question in respect of which leave is sought for determination by the CFA must be one which by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.  We can discern no such question from the contents of the Notice of Motion.

4.No skeleton submissions have been lodged with the Court by the applicant pursuant to PD 2.1, para 3(a).  We consider that this application can properly be determined on paper without an oral hearing. 

5.The following points were made in the Notice of Motion :

(1)  The “decision maker” erred in relying on the country of origin information because actual situation is different;

(2)  The Immigration Officer and the High Court ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities;

(3)  “The decision” is bad or bias based on a formulaic approach calculated to reject the applicant’s claim;

(4)  The applicant asked the Court to provide him with legal representation, consider his real situation and save his life.

6.For the following reasons, we are unable to find any merit in this application :

(1)  It is not the function of judicial review to re-examine the evidence or review the factual findings of the Board: see Judgment, [14];

(2)  The applicant’s case is premised upon his assertion of threat of violence from his uncle and his two sons which arose out of a land dispute.  It has nothing to do with violence against minorities;

(3)  The allegation of bias is a serious one.  It is not made with any particulars, and was neither advanced before Deputy High Court Judge To, nor at the hearing of the applicant’s appeal;

(4)  As noted in the Decision (Form CALL-1), [4], the applicant did have the assistance of lawyers for the preparation of his non-refoulement claim form and for his screening interview.  His case was rejected by the Board primarily because it was vague and unbelievable: see Judgment [8]. 

7.In the premises, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person