Re Safri Surjit Singh

CAMP 280/2022, [2024] HKCA 1017

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 280 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 207 OF 2019)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Kwan Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Yuen JA) handed down on 15 September 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1051). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 4 April 2022 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 3 October 2023. It was further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

Notice of Motion

3.What the applicant stated in the Notice of Motion filed on 19 September 2023 may be summarised as follows:

(1)  There is some error in the decision. The decision maker just relied on the country of origin information and the applicant’s previous facts which were in favour of rejecting the claims;

(2)  Actual life is different from the country of origin information. The immigration officer and the courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining;

(3)  The decision betrays a biased and formulaic approach, which is unlikely to fairly assess the danger to the applicant’s life and clearly calculated to reject his claims;

(4)  He does not have legal representative and requested the court to provide him legal representative and to consider his real situation to save his life.

Disposition

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.The applicant’s grounds in the present application are just bare assertions without particulars and evidence in support.

6.As for the lack of legal representation, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings. The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director of Immigration.

7.The applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.We therefore dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 19 September 2023.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person