|
CAMP 316/2022
[2023] HKCA 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 316 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1104 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
WIJI LESTARIASIH |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 12 December 2022
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2023
________________________
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 10 October 2022.[1]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 5 December 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document, the applicant merely stated that the court judgments were “not good” for her and she wanted to go to the CFA.
3. In her written submissions lodged on 12 December 2022, the applicant simply repeated the background of her non-refoulement claim and asked for permission to appeal to the CFA.
4. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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. Further, the application was made out of time, after expiry of the 28-day period prescribed by section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Thomas Au) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|