RE TIZON EVELYN SANTOS

CAMP 161/2022, [2024] HKCA 178

on appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 161 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 3015 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 30 December 2022, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ P Li dated 26 August 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 9 January 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated that her enemies were still allegedly pursuing her, and that the court “did not scrutinise [her] application for judicial review”.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions.

5.  In a letter from the applicant, which was received by this court on 7 September 2023, the applicant revealed that she was being detained by the Correctional Services Department at Nei Kwu Correctional Institute in Hei Ling Chau and stated that she would now like to “close [her] case as non-refoulement claimant and go back to [her] country as soon as possible” due to her medical conditions of high blood pressure and hypertension.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s apparent intention to withdraw the Notice of Motion, we are of the view that the present application is in any event unmeritorious and is liable to be dismissed.

8.  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.

9.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 9 January 2023 is dismissed.