RE RAMIREZ BELTRAN CLAUDIA LORENA

CAMP 209/2020

[2021] HKCA 1891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 209 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 515/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 May 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 14 August 2019 refusing to grant extension of time for her application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“… with due respect and humble submissions I beg to you that I couldn’t accept the decision which was made on 21 May 2021 by Judge in the Appeal decision, because decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. This decision was unfair and reflected my application for time extension to appeal. Other grounds are written on Annex-A.”

4.  In Annex-A attached to the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that:

(1)  the judges “reviewed the matter lightly” and failed to meet the high standard of fairness;

(2)  the decision had real and significant implications for her right not to be subject to torture and her right to non-refoulement protection.

(3)  the judges “failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Colombia”;

(4)  the judges “may not analyzed the applicant’s summon…and they did not scrutinize her problem in her home country”; and

(5)  the judges’ decision was unreasonable.

5.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for her to return.  She also expanded on the grounds advanced in the Notice of Motion.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.  

8.  The applicant failed to engage our reasons for dismissing the application at all, which are given in [14] – [20] of our judgment.  Further, all of the grounds lack particulars.  In our view, none of the grounds advanced by the applicant is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 June 2021 is dismissed.