RE AISAH

CAMP 377/2022, [2024] HKCA 670

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 377 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1673 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.  On 12 June 2023, this Court handed down judgment ([2023] HKCA 735) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 January 2022 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 12 September 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time by over two months. The applicant has also lodged written submission within time.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.  The applicant’s present application is out of time by over two months. The applicant in the supporting affirmation simply said in brief that the application was out of time without giving any further explanation or particulars. According to Court record, our judgment was sent by ordinary mail to the applicant’s last known address on 12 June 2023.

7.  As to the merit of the intended appeal, section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

8.  The notice of motion stated the following :

‘ The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I did not get justice. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice.’

9.  In the applicant’s written submission, she repeated the background of her case.

10.  We are of the view that no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

11.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion. Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.