RE RINA MULYANI AND ANOTHER

CACV 576/2020

[2021] HKCA 1777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 654 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 6 August 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 31 August 2020 in which he refused to grant extension of time for the applicants to apply for leave to apply for judicial review, and in any event, he dismissed the applicants’ application for leave to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  At the hearing of the appeal before this Court on 2 August 2021, the 2^nd applicant was absent and the 1^st applicant confirmed her appeal was on behalf of herself and her son, the 2^nd applicant.  The 1^st applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 11 October 2021 (“Notice of Motion”), for leave to appeal out of time against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We shall regard her present application for leave to appeal against our judgment to include any such application on behalf of her son, the 2^nd applicant.

1.4  Under section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“HKCFAO”), an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  The Notice of Motion was filed some 5 weeks late.  The 1^st applicant stated in her affirmation of 11 October 2021 that she was not aware of her filing deadline and requested the Court to accept her apologies.  We do not consider this a good reason.  In any event, as seen below, the 1^st applicant has not shown any merits in her intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.5  In her Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant wrote: “I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and Court decision as well.  The authorities totally relied on web information and my previous facts which were faver (sic)  on reject my claim.  Actual life occur different situation them mentioned on web information.  There is no such invastigation (sic)  in my non-refoulement claim. Officer and Court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the vialance (sic)  toward a bias and formula approch (sic)  unlikely fairly access the danger of my life in my country.”

1.6  The 1^st applicant lodged written submissions on 25 October 2021.  Essentially, she reiterated therein that she disagreed with the decision of the Director of Immigration as well as the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board, and that she did not think her case had been determined fairly.  She further complained that she was never provided with proper legal and language assistance and that the determination of the appeal/petition had never been read to her in her own language and that there was procedural unfairness.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the 1^st applicant in her Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from what is stated by the 1^st applicant in the Notice of Motion. 

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 11 October 2021 is dismissed.