SUDHIR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 319 /2024, [2025] HKCA 896

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 319 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 879 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Sudhir Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Kwan Ag CJHC and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

29 September 2025

____________________

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 handed down on 20 May 2025 ([2025] HKCA 460). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 30 July 2024 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 July 2025.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in his notice of motion:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director of Immigration/Torture Claims Appeal Board;

(2)  There is some error in law 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 claim;

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

(4)  The judge did not apply the law properly.

4.  The applicant’s contentions stated in his written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker; and

(2)  The adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.

Analysis and disposition

5.  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.

6.  The applicant’s grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without sufficient particulars or supporting evidence.  He did not identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did he identify 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).

7.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion filed on 25 June 2025.

  

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person