Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Jassal Tajinder Kumar And Others

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date07 December 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 1841
Year2021
Judgement NumberCACV183/2020
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV183A/2020 RE JASSAL TAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

CACV 183/2020

[2021] HKCA 1841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 183 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 303 OF 2018)

________________________

RE: JASSAL TAJINDER KUMAR 1st Applicant
JASSAL GURPREET KAUR 2nd Applicant
JASSAL RAHUL 3rd Applicant
JASSAL ROHAN 4th Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 7 December 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________


Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. The applicants are Indian nationals whose non-refoulement claims were rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Their applications for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision were refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan.[1] In this Court’s judgment of 27 January 2021,[2] we dismissed the 1st and 2nd Applicants’ appeals, but allowed the appeals of the 3rd and 4th Applicants (i.e. the 1st and 2nd Applicants’ children), against the refusal of leave for judicial review.

2. The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for disposing of the appeals in the way we did have been set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3. The 1st and 2nd Applicants now seek, by Notice of Motion filed on 1 June 2021, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). In the Notice of Motion, the 1st and 2nd Applicants raised the following matters:

“ 1. Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”), in determining whether it was reasonable for the 1st and 2nd Applicants to relocate to other part of India, failed to consider the undue hardship caused by the inter-caste and inter-religious marriage between the 1st and 2nd Applicants. The learned Deputy Judge in the Court of First Instance erred in holding that the Board’s decision on internal relocation was reasonable. The learned Judges in the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the lower court’s decision.

2. The learned Judges in the Court of Appeal, in dismissing the 1st and 2nd Applicant’s appeal, failed to recognise or to find that the impact of relocation on the 3rd and 4th Applicants as minors also affects the feasibility of internal relocation for the 1st and 2nd Applicants their parents.

3. The intended appeal involves a question of great general public importance: Should the Board, in the context of non-refoulement claims made by a family, consider the minor-specific issues arising from the personal circumstances of the minor child when adjudicating the parents’ non-refoulement claims?” (sic)

4. The application was filed long after the expiry of the 28-day time limit laid down in section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). The 1st and 2nd Applicants explain that the delay...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT