RE MANUEL TRINIDAD AGUILAN

CACV 529/2021

[2022] HKCA 1583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2205 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 11 May 2022, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 23 November 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 24 May 2022, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

4.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

5.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some error in law of decision maker. I am disagree with the decision made by the director of immigration. As well as the adjudicator of torture claim appeal board. I do not think my case has been determined fairly. Because authorities totally relied on CAL form and web news. There is no such investigation in my case.’

6.  The applicant stated in her written submissions in summary the following points :

1)  Her case had not been dealt with fairly.

2)  Lack of interpretation service being given to her.

3)  It is unfair for the Judges to say that court cannot interfere with the findings of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

II.  Our view

7.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  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.

8.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submissions. 

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

III.  Disposition

10.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 May 2022 is dismissed.