ANIK PURWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 225/2020

[2021] HKCA 278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 225 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2952 OF 2018)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 25 January 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment of this Court handed down on 8 January 2021 ([2021] HKCA 39). In that judgment we dismissed her appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 16 June 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 1201) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 26 January 2021 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing unless this Court directs otherwise.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 8 February 2021.  Having considered the documents, we consider it appropriate to determine this application on paper.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the CFA, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the CFA, 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 CFA for decision.

4.  The applicant stated the following in her Notice of Motion:

“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]

5.  Her written submissions are the same as those she lodged for her appeal in this Court, save that she has now added: (i) a complaint that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with her application without properly assessing her credibility; (ii) passages from case law on the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness; and (iii) the provisions of section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) which concern the late filing of a notice of appeal with the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

6.  Item (i) is a new complaint not advanced in the applicant’s Form 86 for the application for leave to apply for judicial review or her supporting affirmation.  It is a bare assertion without particulars or substantiation.  As such, it raises no arguable point.  Items (ii) and (iii) are simply general statements of law which have no prima facie relevance to the application.

7.  Plainly, neither the Notice of Motion nor the applicant’s written submissions disclose any grounds for impugning the judgment of this Court.  She has also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Nor is there any basis for granting leave to appeal on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). 

8.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed.