RE PAYARA MST RABAYA AKTER Applicant

CAMP 153/2021

[2021] HKCA 1937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 153 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1111 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 7 September 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1268)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang given on 22 October 2020 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 4 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission in support of the application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 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.

6.  Other than stating that the applicant wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal, the Notice of Motion did not contain any grounds in support of the application.

7.  In her written submission, the applicant stated that her country is a land of terrorism, where nobody dares to speak up against the government and the police who are powerful.  It is said that her government is her enemy and wants to kill her, and she has many problems in her country, but the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board did not believe her.    

8.  We are of the view that the matters put forward in the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Further, for the reasons given in [19] and [20] of our judgment, the applicant’s assertion that she faces risks of harm upon return to her home country is unarguable.   

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.