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

Re Lakhwinder Singh

Judgment Cited in 639 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date02 May 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCA 246
Year2018
Judgement NumberCACV21/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV21/2018 RE LAKHWINDER SINGH

CACV 21/2018

[2018] HKCA 246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 21 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 71 OF 2017)

---------------------------

RE LAKHWINDER SINGH Appellant

---------------------------

Before : Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court
Date of Submission : 6 March 2018
Date of Judgment : 2 May 2018

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Li J dated 19 January 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant is from India. He travelled through Macau to Hong Kong on 5 January 2014 and was given permission to remain for 14 days, but overstayed after the expiry of the permission to remain. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 21 January 2014 and was arrested on the same date. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 3 March 2014. The claim was based on his fear of being harmed or even killed by the family members of his girlfriend because her family disapproved of their relationship.

2. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) decided against the claim on 2 September 2015. The Director considered that the alleged risk of harm would unlikely materialize. The availability of state protection and the possibility of internal relocation would also lower the perceived risk of harm. The decision covered BOR 3 risk, persecution risk, and torture risk. By a Notice of Further Decision dated 31 October 2016, the Director also assessed BOR 2 risk in respect of the applicant and decided against him.

3. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). After a hearing on 18 November 2016, the Board found that the applicant was neither honest nor reliable and that he failed to establish his case. The Board dismissed the appeal on 26 January 2017.

4. The intended judicial review was in respect of the decision of the Board. The Form 86 filed by the applicant on 10 March 2017 did not contain any grounds for seeking relief. In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the applicant deposed that:

“I was unable to submit my additional facts and grounds according to my BOR2 claim. Decision maker did not rely on any of the new facts and reached to decision just rely on my old facts and grounds. There are some errors by law in the decision and even during the Hearing, Interpreter did not inform me about my additional facts rights which can be relevant to my BOR claim. Decision maker prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards the minority searching for the unrealistic silver lining. The decision maker provided the website materials and ignored the actual reports of how the complaint system actually operated in real life...” (sic)

5. After summarizing the facts and background of the case and giving due consideration to the decision of the Board, the judge gave the following reasons in refusing leave at [12] – [14] of the CALL-1 Form:

“12. This court held a hearing on 18 August 2017. The applicant explained that B’s family members set fire to his house several months ago. They again threatened to kill him if returned to India. B’s father was a police officer who had framed him up for murder. There was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
636 cases
  • Re Shrestha Santosh Kumar
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 6 September 2018
    ...Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152; Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162; RE Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246 and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA 163. (b) An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasi......
  • Re Waryam Singh
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 24 September 2018
    ...Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152; Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162; Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246 and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA (2) An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasion fo......
  • Re Nadeem Asif
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 21 September 2018
    ...Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152; Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162; Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246 and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA 163. (2) An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasi......
  • Re Akhtar Kamran
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 28 September 2018
    ...Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152; Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162; Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246 and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA (2) An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasion fo......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

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