RE YUNANIK

CACV 536/2020

[2022] HKCA 969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 536 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2914 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 29 September 2021, this court (Kwan VP, Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 30 July 2020, by which he refused to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal 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 12 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that she would like to “reject and review the decision made by the Court…”, by reason that the court “[disregarded her] dangerous situation should [she] return to [her] home country”.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 26 October 2021, the applicant in essence repeated the dangers she may face if refouled to Indonesia.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion 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.

8.  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 dated 12 October 2021 is dismissed.