RE RINI WIDIA WATI AND ANOTHER

CACV 533/2020

[2022] HKCA 1771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 533 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 868 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 21 January 2022, this court (Kwan VP, Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the 1^st applicant’s appeal (but allowing the 2^nd applicant’s appeal)  against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 23 September 2020 refusing leave to the 1^st applicant to apply for judicial review. The 1^st applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim. The appeal of the 2^nd applicant, the 1^st applicant’s daughter, was allowed and leave was given to her to bring judicial review proceedings against the Board’s decision.

2.  The facts and issues in the 1^st applicant’s 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 1^st applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 February 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant stated inter alia that:

“… I was unable to submit any supporting documents from my country and there are no way to obtain from my country because nobody can help me to take. But if I go my life and my two children’s life also danger by my own father…”

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 16 February 2022 (with the birth certificates of her children attached), the applicant stated, in gist, that she wishes to stay with her children and husband in Hong Kong to oversee her children’s upbringing, and that because her husband is a Sunni Muslim from Pakistan, her family, being Shia Muslim, would not accept him.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion 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 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.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no 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 4 February 2022 is dismissed.