SRIATIN-NGATIMIN alias NGATIMIN SRIATIN alias SRIATIN NGATIMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 211/2023, [2024] HKCA 1110

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 211 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 169 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 24 September 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 2 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there were errors made by the authorities and she disagreed with them.  She said they relied on “web news” which was not officially recognised and rejected all his evidence.

3.  In her written submissions lodged on 14 October 2024, the applicant in essence claimed that she had been unfairly treated because she was not provided with legal and language assistance.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  The question of language and legal assistance has been dealt with in paragraph 17 of this court’s judgment dated 24 September 2024.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.