|
CACV 207/2020
[2022] HKCA 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 207 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2968/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
RIAS TUTI WAGIRAN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 11 January 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 13 July 2021, this court (Yeung VP, Chu and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 16 June 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 (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 20 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“I want to challenge the decision”
4. In the affirmation filed on 20 August 2021, the applicant deposed that:
“I am late because I don’t know how to fill the form. Now I get help from my friends.”
5. The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 6 September 2021. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for her to return.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, 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 applicant deposed that she was late in making the application because she did not know how to fill in the form. However, she was not in fact late because time does not run during the summer vacation (1-31 August), see [4] of Ndukwe Bartholomew Chukwuma [2021] HKCA 329 and [2] of Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2020] HKCA 794.
8. The matters stated 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.
9. Neither the Notice of Motion, affirmation nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 August 2021 is dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|