RE FITRI AMBARWATI MARIA ZUBAIR

CACV 110/2018

[2018] HKCA 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 110 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 547/2017)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 2 August 2018, this court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 13 April 2018 refusing leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing their appeals from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claims.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 applicants subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 21 September 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion that:

(1) this court said that the role of the court in a leave for judicial review application is not to evaluate the merits.  However, this court went on to evaluate the merits of the Board’s Decision.  The whole process of assessing the merit of the leave application had already been determined by this court before the application was assessed;

(2) this court failed to appreciate that the 2^nd applicant may be killed or become a victim of human trafficking.  This court was biased in deciding the leave application.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicants lodged a written submission in support of their application on 4 October 2018.  In their written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the notice of motion.  They also relied on an additional Country of Origin information (COI).

5.  Having considered the applicants’ 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 applicants’ application on the basis of their notice of motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have 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 they have raised in their notice of motion and written submission.  We have considered the reasons given by the applicants for claiming that this court had predetermined their case and was biased.  We are satisfied that there is no merit in any of the applicants’ assertions.

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

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 21 September 2018 is dismissed.