RE KHADKA KRISHNA MAYA

CAMP 39/2022

[2022] HKCA 1725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 39 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2983 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 1 September 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 1278). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 22 July 2021, by which the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 2142).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to help from High Court authority to reconsider my case as I believe TCAB made the decision of my case was unfair. I am still trying to get some new evidence to support my case from Nepal.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 5 October 2022.  In those submissions, the applicant claimed that she was illiterate and could not read the Nepali language.  She contended that she was not aware of the world calendar’s dates and years and that Nepalese calendar was different from that in Hong Kong.  She further claimed that all the submitted documents were genuine and not fraudulent and asserted that her life would still be under risk if she returned to Nepal as her enemies would definitely find her and kill her.  She also claimed that she had obtained some new evidence which showed the whole story about her husband when Maoists kidnapped and brainwashed him and he became a Maoist; and that he later died due to the revolutionary fight between the rebellion party and the army of the government.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  More importantly, her allegations mainly focused on the Board’s Decision and she failed to identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  Her bare contentions that she was “not aware of the world’s calendar’s dates and years” and that “Nepalese calendar is different than our calendar in Hong Kong” also do not advance her case.  As stated at [19] - [21] of the Judgment, her intended appeal previously before this Court was a non-starter as she failed to identify any error in the Leave Decision and general assertions of her fear if refouled plainly do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further, although the applicant claimed that she had new evidence showing her husband’s story, to this day, she has failed to provide any such evidence or demonstrate how such evidence would assist to her non-refoulement claim.  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly lacks merit and must fail.

8.  In any event, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 22 September 2022 is dismissed.