RE ANADA IGAH JUITA RA

CAMP 545/2021

[2023] HKCA 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 545 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2767 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 April 2022, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 28 July 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision dated 10 March 2021. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dismissing her claim for non-refoulement protection.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, 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 out of time on 9 September 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that she disagreed with the decision of the Director of Immigration and she “[does] not think [her] case was determined fairly”.  In her supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that she was not aware of the deadline for the filing of her Notice of Motion.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 22 September 2022, the applicant complained about her lack of proficiency in English which had allegedly caused her prejudice in the proceedings.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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 applicant failed to explain how and when she eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide any explanation for the delay. The delay in the present case of more than 3 months is not insignificant, and the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.  However, we shall nonetheless consider the merits of the application.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not in any event 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.

8.  The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 9 September 2022 is dismissed.