RE PURISIMA AIDA P

CACV 51/2022

[2022] HKCA 1226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 51 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 14 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the court):

1.  On 10 June 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Lisa Wong J) judgment of 13 May 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 637). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 13 January 2022, refusing to grant the applicant extension of time and dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 102).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed that the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) failed to comply with their duty to make sufficient inquiries into the Country of Origin conditions which contravened the high standards of fairness.  She further claimed that the Board and the Director failed to take into account or give proper weight to relevant considerations that her life would be subjected to danger if refouled and that she had been placed under severe mental distress as a result of being targeted in her home country.  She also claimed that the authorities could not protect her.

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 June 2022. In those submissions, she repeated the allegations raised in her Notice of Motion and further asserted that this Court did not focus on her fear that her life would be at danger.

6.  In our view, her intended appeal has no substance.  The arguments advanced by the applicant in the present application had been considered and rejected by this Court at [8] ‑ [16] of the Judgment and the applicant failed to identify with particulars any error in the Judgment.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014) at [2] and [3].  As such, nothing set out in the Notice of Motion or written submissions can be construed as viable ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In any event, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 10 June 2022 is dismissed.