|
CAMP 233/2021
[2022] HKCA 1588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 233 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2301 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
Bahi An Annie Rose Celestial |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
5 October 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
10 November 2022 |
_________________
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 to this court for extension of time to appeal against that decision was at first granted, but she failed to avail of the extension, and her subsequent application for extension of time was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 19 September 2022.[1]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 23 September 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the “Justice” acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with her application without properly assessing her credibility, and that the decision of an administrative body can be set aside if the resulting decision is “unreasonable” in the Wednesbury sense.
3. Her written submissions set out certain principles or passages taken from decided cases but fail to explain how they are relevant to this case or how they show that there are any grounds of appeal.
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.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1]
[2022] HKCA 1325.
|