CACV 19/2025, [2025] HKCA 557
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2263 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: | SAHOTA RANDHIR SINGH | Applicant |
________________________
| Before: | Hon Cheung JA and Andrew Chan J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: | 11 June 2025 |
| Date of Judgment: | 25 June 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Andrew 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 KW Lung of 14 January 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.
2) Background
2. The applicant is a national of India. He attempted to enter Hong Kong with his passport in February 2016 but he was refused permission to land. On the same day, with legal assistance, he raised non-refoulement claim by two written significations. He has since been detained[1].
3. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if he returns he would be harmed or killed by the ruling political party, the Shiromani Akali Dal (“SAD”) party, for being a supporter of the Indian National Congress party (“INC”), and refusing to join the SAD[2].
4. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4] to [9].
3) The Director’s Decision
5. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s claim on 6 May 2016. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
6. The Director decided against the applicant’s right to life claim on 10 August 2017 (“the Director’s Further Decision”). The Director’s Further Decision covered Article 2 (right to life) of the Bill of Rights (“BOR 2”). The applicant also relied on the allegation that his girlfriend’s family member would kill him because they objected to their relationship. The Board objected this claim.
4) The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board[4]. After a hearing held on 12 August 2016, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 August 2016 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [13]-[16].
9. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Further Decision to the Board[5]. After a hearing held on 15 July 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 1 August 2019 (‘the Board’s 2nd Decision’).
10. The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [17]-[19].
5) Decision of the Judge
11. The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation, but he did not raise any reason to challenge the two Board decisions[6].
12. The Judge held that there was no reason for it to interfere with the Board’s finding of fact. The applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s 2nd Decision[7].
6) Grounds of appeal
13. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :
‘I am not agree with the decision of the Court. This decision make my life endangered and make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country. I have still severe problem in my country and if I return back to my home country I will be killed by my enemies, but the decisions makers did not scrutinize my problem properly.’
14. The applicant’s written submission can be summarized as follows :
(1) The Judge was wrong for not applying the principle of irrationality;
(2) The Judge reviewed the matter lightly and did not apply high standard of fairness;
(3) The decision has significant consequence on the applicant’s claim;
(4) The Judge was wrong for not applying the principle of procedural fairness;
(5) Despite having submitted all the necessary proof, the Judge did not pay greater care;
(6) The Judge did not analyse the claim properly and his refusal was unreasonable. He further failed to give the applicant sufficient chance to arrange his evidence;
(7) The Board relied on hearsay evidence;
(8) The applicant’s home country has massive and gross violations of human right;
(9) The Board misdirected on the extended meaning of state acquiescence;
(10) The applicant will not have state protection upon his return;
(11) The applicant did not get help from the police. If he returns he will be killed;
(12) The applicant was brutally tortured in his home country;
(13) The applicant requests for the Court to grant time for him to solve his problem.
7) Our view
15. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His grounds of appeal and written submission consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. 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].
16. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.
17. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) | (Andrew Chan) |
| Justice of Appeal | Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [7];
[2] Director’s Decision at [2]; Judge’s decision at [4];
[3] Director’s Decision at [8]-[9];
[4] Board’s Decision at [4];
[5] Board’s 2nd Decision at [7];
[6] Judge’s decision at [20]-[21];
[7] Judge’s decision at [25]-[26];