RE NAMUKASA KULTHOUM

CACV 529/2020

[2021] HKCA 1684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 529 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1786 OF 2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 July 2021, this court (Barma JA and Linda Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 14 May 2020 refusing to grant extension of time for her application for leave for judicial review and dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 20 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The [Director] and the [Board] rejected my claim of non-refoulement. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. Finally I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge her written submissions within time, despite having been reminded of the same by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 20 July 2021. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions, and her written submissions lodged on 17 August 2021 in non-compliance will not be considered.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion did not identify any supposed error in our judgment and has therefore failed to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 July 2021 is dismissed.