RE CUCIYATI BT RASMAN TURIDAH

CACV 466/2019

[2020] HKCA 569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 466 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2941 OF 2018)

____________

____________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 3 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 418), this Court (Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 27 September 2019 in HCAL 2941/2018 refusing to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.  The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 31 October 2018 dismissing her petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 4 April 2018 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 8 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that :

“I am not satisfied with decision because this will lead my life towards more danger. I can’t go back to my country at this moment because my life is not save in my home land in Indonesia. I just humbly request to respected court to help me to stay in Hong Kong until my problems solved in my home land in Indonesia.”

3.  In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 June 2020, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 June 2020 in which she advanced the following grounds :

(1)  The Director and the Board were in breach of procedural fairness in that (a) they had unlawfully fettered their discretion by refusing her appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirement; (b) the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with her appeal; (c) the Director’s and the Board’s decisions in refusing her appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or was a result of procedural errors or unfairness; and (d) the Director and the Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant.

(2)  The majority of the documents in the bundle were in English inclusive of the skeleton submission for the Director.  There was insufficient time for her to prepare for the hearing especially due to her limited knowledge in the English language for which the Director should be well aware of.   She could not afford to engage an interpreter and it was difficult to engage one charging a lower cost in a short period of time.

(3)  As the hearing bundle was not provided to her earlier and with interpretation, she did not understand and was confused at the Board’s hearing.  

(4)  Despite she answered all the questions honestly, the Board found her an incredible witness.  She strongly believed that the hearing was unfair as the Board failed to make appropriate arrangement in relation to the hearing bundle.

(5)  All acts of the authorities were highly discriminatory and unfair to her.

4.  The Registrar had directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  Ground 1 is general accusation and assertion against the Director’s and the Board’s decisions without elaborations and specifics.  As set out at [11] of our judgment, we did not see any error of law or procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the Director and the Board and the applicant failed to raise any valid arguments for us to reverse our decision.

7.  Grounds 2 to 4 were in gist complaints that the Board did not provide the hearing bundle to her at an earlier time before the hearing and without interpretation.  These grounds are mere regurgitation of arguments that were advanced before the Judge at the hearing below.  They were canvassed and duly rejected by the Judge by his decision of 27 September 2019. Further, we note that the hearing bundle contained (i) documents that were prepared/filed by the applicant including her non-refoulement claim by way of written representation, her completed non-refoulement claim form and the Notice of Appeal/Petition to the Board; (ii) written record of interview prepared by immigration officer and the Director’s decision which would have been explained to her by her duty lawyer and (iii) County of origin information for which the Adjudicator had explained and discussed with the applicant[1] at the hearing when she was assisted by an interpreter.   In the circumstances, the applicant’s complaint simply cannot stand.

8.  Grounds 5 is vague and contains general assertions, with none of the matter directed at the Judge’s decision or our judgment.  They are not viable grounds of appeal.  

9.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 3 June 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and her written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

10.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss her notice of motion.

[1] The bundle of documents were set out in [8] of the Board’s decision