|
CAMP 198/2020
[2022] HKCA 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 198 OF 2020
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 285/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
USMAN YUMIATI |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 11 January 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
1. On 19 July 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 7 August 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.
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 29 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“… I was unable to submit any document. But still I have problem in my country by my husband because at this moment I have a baby without wedlock for this reason he got angry with me and my child suffering from many illness and every month attend to clinic to take treatment too. He was born in Hong Kong, and my all family has away by tsunami. Therefore I don’t have anybody in Indonesia to help me, only I have one friend he also threaten by my husband, only I am seeking solution for my life situation.”
4. No supporting affirmation was filed by the applicant.
5. In her written submissions lodged on 9 August 2021, the applicant repeated the dangers she may face if she returned to Indonesia, that her son is suffering from illnesses and she had nobody in Indonesia to help her. Attached to the submissions were, inter alia, the birth certificate of the applicant’s son and medical documentary proof that he had been diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
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. The matters advanced 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. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 29 July 2021 is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal
|
The applicant acting in person
|