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

Re Manjit Kaur

Judgment Cited in 61 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date04 May 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCA 247
Judgement NumberCACV55/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV55/2018 RE MANJIT KAUR

CACV 55/2018

[2018] HKCA 247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 55 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 643 OF 2017)

__________________________

RE: MANJIT KAUR Applicant

__________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Yuen JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 4 May 2018

________________

JUDGMENT

________________


Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J on 2 March 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant is an Indian national. She arrived in Hong Kong from India via Shenzhen on 12 January 2014. Her permission to remain here expired on 26 January 2014. Since then she overstayed illegally. She made a request for asylum to the UNHCR on 27 January 2014. She surrendered to the Department of Immigration on 10 February 2014. On 10 March 2014, she submitted a non-refoulement (“NRF”) claim by way of written representation. On 28 August 2015, she submitted her NRF claim form.

2. According to the applicant, in June 2011 she accepted a marriage proposal from a man (G) in India but G’s family opposed. They threatened to kill her if she and G married. G left for Hong Kong in August 2013. G’s family pressured the applicant’s family into arranging a marriage between the applicant and another Indian man (S). The applicant and S married in September 2013. Upon discovering that the applicant maintained contact over the phone with G, S beat the applicant with a wooden rod. After the applicant divorced S in around November 2013, S threatened to kill the applicant. Fearing for her life, the applicant fled to Hong Kong on 12 January 2014.

3. The Director decided against the claims on 30 December 2015. The decision covered BOR 3 risk, persecution risk and torture risk (“the Director’s Decision”). By a Further Decision of 9 December 2016, the Director also assessed BOR 2 risk in respect of the applicant and decided against her.

4. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board. After the hearings held on 23 January 2017 and 14 February 2017, the Board dismissed the appeal on 23 June 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”).

5. The intended judicial review was in respect of the Board’s Decision only. The Form 86 filed by the applicant on 20 September 2017 did not set out any ground.

6. In her affirmation of 20 September 2017, she said the following:

“ I am not satisfied with the decision given by [the Board]. I can’t go back to my country at this moment. Please help me to stay in Hong Kong until my problem will be solved”.

7. The judge reviewed the materials carefully. After summarizing the facts and background of the case and giving due consideration to the decision of the Board, she gave the following reasons in refusing leave at [9] to [11] of the CALL-1 Form of 2 March 2018:

“ 9. The Applicant set out no grounds of review. The sole complaint of the Applicant is that she is not satisfied with the decision of the Adjudicator. This is not a basis for judicial review and the application for leave should fail in limine.

10. Despite the fact that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Re Shrestha Santosh Kumar
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 6 September 2018
    ...skeleton submissions, notwithstanding an unless order, is regarded as the abandonment of the right to an oral hearing: see Re Majit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247; Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278; Re Ali Arshad [2018] HKCA 304; Re SK Sarfaraj [2018] HKCA 307; and Re Gurjant Singh [2018] HKCA 467. 6.......
  • Re Maninder Singh
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 31 October 2018
    ...of our appeal process and this court has been taking a firm stance against non-compliance with such requirement: see Re Manjit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247, para 10; Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278, para 12; Re Ali Arshad [2018] HKCA 304, para 10; and Re Sk Sarfaraj [2018] HKCA 307, para 3. On 27 ......
  • Re Ashwani Kumar
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 18 October 2018
    ...2018) is processed on paper based on the materials already lodged according to the practice adopted by this Court: see Re Manjit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247; Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278; Re Ali Arshad [2018] HKCA 304; and Re SK Sarfaraj [2018] HKCA 307. Background 3. The applicant is a nation......
  • Re Sellaiah Murugesan
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 20 November 2020
    ...the failure as an abandonment of right to oral hearing: see Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; Re Manjit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247; Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278; Re Ali Arshad [2018] HKCA 304; Re SK Sarfaraj [2018] HKCA 307; United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yu......
    • 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