RE TOVAR BLANCO SABRINA THAIBYS

CACV 30/2023, [2023] HKCA 954

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 30 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 26 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 20 June 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 16 June 2023 (“the Judgment”)  ([2023] HKCA 750). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 31 January 2023, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 242).

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 stated:

“1. There is an error in the decision, As the decision maker just relied on the Country of Origin Information (‘COI’)  which favours the rejection of my claims. As the actual situation is different from the COI.

2. The Immigration Officer and the judge of High Court overlooked the evidence of violence towards the minorities. Also, the Board has significantly relied on news the source of which is not officially recognized is simply hearsay. The lack of credible information has result in groundless speculations.

3. On the day of Hearing, the Spanish interpreter did [not] help me to translate of what I wanted to explain about my case. She just cut me off while I was speaking and she just translated from her own instead of what I said, which was very unfair to me. I received no help from her at all.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 4 July 2023.  In those submissions, she repeated the factual basis and procedural history of her non-refoulement claim.  She asserted that she was arrested for sex and immoral work but was not aware that what she was doing was illegal and that she had received death threats from her pimp and her husband. She claimed that these people were very dangerous and that she feared for her life and her family’s lives.  She further asserted that during the hearing before this Court on 7 June 2023, she could not defend her case as the translator that was assigned to her did not allow her to express herself correctly.  She further attached an excerpt of “Tren de Aragua” from Wikipedia as well as a Spanish article published by El Comercio on 22 September 2022 titled “Tren de Aragua, la sanguinaria banda criminal que Venezuela export a America Latina” (“the New Documents”).  The applicant then claimed that the New Documents corroborated her written submissions.

6.  In our view, her intended application is wholly without substance.  The allegations made in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations.  She did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  As to her assertions regarding the Spanish interpreter provided to the applicant during the hearing before this Court on 7 June 2023, we noted that those are again vague and bare allegations made by the applicant.  In any event, the applicant did not raise any complaint during the said hearing before this Court that she was allegedly cut short or stopped by the interpreter, and she failed to point out any reason as to why she did not raise those complaints during the said hearing.  More importantly, she failed to point out what further grounds she would want to advance before this Court. There is therefore no substance in her complaints.

8.  Further, even taking her case on the merits of her non-refoulement claim at its highest, her allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.  The applicant has therefore 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.

10.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.