CACV 205/2022
[2022] HKCA 1613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 205 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 756 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN
RENIDO ANTONIO B.
Applicant
and
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Putative Respondent
and
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Putative Interested Party
________________________
_____________________
Before: Hon Chow JA and Ng J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 11 October 2022
Date of Judgment: 31 October 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 20 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung on 13 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board ”) dated 8 March 2019 whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director ”) dated 15 March 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 10 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
“I would like to challenge the decision”.
3. In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 11 October 2022, she simply stated some background facts and failed to identify any proposed ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.
4. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be) 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.
5. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
(Peter Ng)
The Applicant acting in person.